‘Here were MPs worth Rs 25 crore each and I wasn’t even worth 25 seconds of Parliament’s time’

• How wonderful to have you here. Early morning right here with parliament here as the backdrop. You are the new star hero of so many young people infact young and old around the country.

Its taken me ten years. I started in Parliament ten years ago. Its not as if I have just burst on the scene, but its amazing how 3 minutes can change everything .

•I believe the video of your speech is the hottest thing on you tube.right now.

So I believe. It’s the one way I manage to get a number of my family members not living in India to see my speech. Even dad is in London. So I think his exposure to my speech has been on you tube.

•Is he impressed? Is he envious?

He is coming back to the country today. I will have to ask him.

•Is he envious?

I don’t know.

•Do you sometimes compete?

No I don’t think so. I don’t think so.

•But tell me Omar. We will get into other things. But just about this speech. From where did the passion come because you know you have been in parliament as you said for ten years. We didn’t see this side of you.

I think it was the combination of the frustration that I was not going to get a chance to talk. I have been pressing for 2 days for a couple of minutes to speak and the overwhelming thought I had was that here were members of Parliament supposed to be worth 25 crores each and I wasn’t even worth….

•That was the floor price.

…well, fixed price and I wasn’t even worth 25 seconds of Parliament’s time. and this thought began to really irritate me. And then of course this whole thing about Amarnath and how.kashmiri muslims don’t want the yatra to go ahead and things like that. So all this kind of just churned inside, until finally I got the moment to speak.

•Which was from the heart

I have never got the chance to read what I had prepared

•Right and so the passion came out and I remember you said that you would be interrupted. That may have added to their irritation.

It did. I sat and listened patiently to 2 days of debate from the opposition, from the treasury benches, the least I could have expected was some amount of courtesy if they would listen to what I had to say. I didn’t interrupt when Advaniji talked about Amarnath. Why couldn’t they give me the courtesy of listening to me for a few minutes. I didn’t have, I mean we don’t have the muscle power in the Parliament. I belong to a small party. We contest all of 6 seats. That’s about as many we have in the Lok Sabha.

•You have now figured how valuable you are in the parliamnent

Sure.

•What your presence and Mehbooba’s does to the credibility and plus the respect of the parliament. Leaders from a small party from a very distant state can come and make their voice heard

True but you have to look at the way in which events conspired for this voice to be heard. I mean it was just by sheer luck that the speaker had announced that 6:30 the prime minister would speak and therefore everybody’s eyes were tuned to hear what the prime minister would say and then the speaker said lets give some time to the small parties otherwise I could have just as easily have been speaking the night before at 11 o clock at night when nobody would have been bothering to listen

•And maybe the passion level wouldn’t be.

I would do it half asleep.

•But tell me about Omar. you know you have made a very significant observation there infact you .know if you ask me as a cynical political analyst I think you did two things with that speech. One, you emerged as a leader in his own right. So you sort of walked out of your father’s shadow. You know Omar Abdullah, Farooq Abdullah’s son, Sheikh Abdullah’s grandson. Now Omar Abdullah the leader of his party and the second you finally came clean on your associations with the NDA, particularly after Gujrat.

Sure. I don’t know about the first one because that’s something I would always be Sheikh Abdullah’s grandson and Farooq Abdullah’s son.

•I think your father will be the first to say this.

Well lets see if you get him on the camera. But on the second one- yes, it has been bothering me for a long time, particularly the Gujrat side of it. The fact that I didn’t resign or I did resign but I didn’t press the resignation. I mean this is something that personally has been very difficult for me to come to terms with and just so happened that in the course of the debate, it wasn’t something that I had planned to say but it just came out. Now it’s a matter of record I guess.

•But this has been nagging you.

It has been nagging me.

•Take us back to those weeks. What happened?

Well we all know what was happening in gujrat and we all know I mean, that the sense of anger and anguish that generated. But for me, I guess, the factor that came into play was that I didn’t believe at a personal level Atal Bihari Vajpayee was responsible for those riots, Narandra Modi was. And I felt that by resigning from Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s government and pressing that resignation I would infact be pointing the finger of blame on him personally which I didn’t want to do. With hindsight perhaps as prime minister there was more he should have done to control the situation.

•I have told you many times that if had acted then decisively or removed Modi his stature as a national leader would have gone up

Probably he feels the same way now. I don’t know. I certainly feel

•Did you have a conversation with him.

I didn’t. I did go and tell him that coz if you remember that at that time there was a vote in parliament. I did go and tell him that it would not be possible to vote along with the government. At best I could abstain. I handed over my resignation to him and told him that since I am not voting with the government, I must offer him my resignation. He didn’t accept it, I didn’t press it. Perhaps that’s where

•Did he say something to persuade you in his own way?

No, I mean he was disappointed because he obviously knew that this would reflect. We were the only Muslim ministers in his government. If I wasn’t voting along with his government, obviously it would reflect. But I truly felt, that I couldn’t vote with the government.

•But did you get the sense that he was also truly remourseful.

From the look on his face and his expression, yes. I mean he wasn’t a man who was comfortable with what was happening. Perhaps politics dictated his actions.

•But wasn’t able to control his party.

I don’t suppose anybody could at that time.

•But is that the reason why NDA had the limitations in expending their reach.

It will always have limitations in expanding its reach because parties like mine will never be comfortable allies. We weren’t comfortable then. Even as members of the NDA, we fought elections in Jammu and Kashmir against each other. We fought a byelection, a parliamentary byelection in which we defeated the city BJP MP. So yes the BJP will always have problems reaching out to more secular allies because of their politics.

•And do you see a difference between an NDA led by Mr. Vajpayee and Mr. Advani?

Well I am not part of the NDA now.

•But if you look at it from outside?

This difference will become visible if they have a government. What sort of policies they adopt, how far BJP’s own agenda reflects on the agenda of the NDA.

•But if you look at the speech Mr. Advani made.

There’s a marked difference between what Mr. Vajpayee would have said and perhaps what Mr Advani said.

•If we push the envelope, what could Mr. Vajpayee have said differently?

We have all seen him. I think he tends to take a more objective, he tries to raise the tenor of the debate. He is one of the parliament’s most accomplished debaters and speakers and therefore the tone he sets for discussion is very different from the tone that anybodyelse sets, whether on ruling side or on opposition benches.

•So he had a certain level of credibility and respectability?

I think he had a great degree of credibility, even today in Jammu and Kashmir. people in the valley will not talk favourably of BJP but people will talk favourably of Mr. Vajpayee. You talk to Hurriyat Conference leaders. They will have not a single word of praise for the BJP, but they will have great praise for Mr Vajpayee as a person.

•Even more for him than say for Congress leaders.

Certainly today I think the Hurriyat Conference are a disappointed lot that New Delhi has not taken forward the initiatives that Mr Vajpayee had started. There is definitely more credibility for Mr Vajpayee in the valley, politics aside.

•But what did Mr Vajpayee do right? I mean he was an RSS man.

I don’t know what he did. I guess he wore his heart on his sleeve sometimes and wasn’t afraid to call a spade a spade. He reached out when nobody else was willing to.

•We know it was instinctive, his 18th April speech. He just looked at people’s eyes

And said what he said. I don’t think very many other of his party would do so. They would have repeated the same jingoism jung ke badal nazar aa rahe hain etc etc. aar-paar ki ladai hot pursuit etc etc and we would have been nowhere. He saw the crowd and recognised the sentiment and reached out.

•You know there are 2 kinds of great leaders. One set has a great deal of intellect, thinking analysis and they get things right. The other set is leaders who are completely instinctive, you know who don’t work too hard at getting their lines right who don’t get tutored but they work from the heart and their head. They are instinctive. Ronald Reagon with good intellect but great instinct. Got things right and then could move things. Would you put Vajpayee in that category, someone who worked from instinct?

Yeah having travelled with him, having worked with him for 3 years as a minister certainly.

•And you didn’t see him as anti-Muslim?

Not at all.

•Even though he was from RSS.

No he was from RSS, he was BJP. But on a personal level I never got that impression.

•At a political level?

At a political level also, I saw him towards the end of his career. I don’t know I have not been a great judge of his career in its formative years. But I never saw particular evidence of it. Perhaps he wasn’t as pro-active in being pro-Muslim as some would have expected.

•But he was willing to embrace Muslims as equal citizens?

Well he cheated me as an equal, so that much I must recognise in respect.

•Right, when you spoke that day, was that intellect and planning or was that instinct?

The planning stage was left behind. The planning was in the file that I was carrying. The planning was in the papers that I had read.

•So that was instinct too??

It was largely instinct.

•The reason I ask you this is that you know people say that sometimes one speech, one statement defines a leader. Rajeev Gandhi his speech in Washington to the Congress. ‘I am young, I have a dream that defined him for a very long time’. The Barrack Obama speech in 2004 at the Democratic convention. 12 years later, he is now the front runner in the presidential race. What your speech has done it has brought you to the national centrestage. You are no longer a Kashmiri politician. Its going to be tough for you to be just the leader of a party with 2 or 3 members. So you have to get somewhere on the national scene. Are you saying that NDA is out forever?

The NDA is out.

•If its led by the BJP?

Led by the BJP the NDA is out.

•Out forever?

I mean we are two completely different sides of the political spectrum. There really is no meeting of my ends there.

•Right, and there is no effort also?

Not from my side certainly.

•From their side?

On a personal level, there is always contact. I have a lot of personal regard for a lot of people who I worked with in the NDA. But it just doesn’t work on the agenda, the politics, the jingoism, the statements- they just don’t work.

•Right, and the UPA?

Who knows?

•Because you know the other thing that comes out is a very special relationship that all of you younger MPs have now even though you may be on other sides.

Sure there is no doubt about it.

•You know we saw you defending Rahul’s speech. We saw Sachin praising your speech, I mean family relationship apart. You are an opposite party.

Sure yes. I mean, at a personal level political lines they blur, whether its central hall or dinner at somebody’s place or the occasional meal here and there or even when we travel on some of these parliamentary delegations, the party lines they tend to blur and that’s a good thing.

•So rivalry doesn’t turn into bitterness or enmity?

I think we are all realistic about where we are heading and what we can achieve. And therefore I don’t think.

•But are you believed to make a paradigm shift. Change the politics you know from this politics of exclusion, you know 4 and a half years congress and BJP not even talking to each other.

It will happen but its not going to be easy. Its not going to be easy. I think it will happen when we stop reducing politics to the personal level, when we can keep it political. we can keep it issue based. We don’t attack each other’s individual standing or we don’t attack each one’s where they are born or where they come from or where they were educated or how much money they have in their pockets. Our problem is that politics goes down to the very

•Primordial level?

Yes absolutely. So and so is not born in India and so and so is born of foreign parentage or whatever else. Well, completely unnecessary. Argue on the issues, argue on the merits of your case. As long as you can do that its much easier

•Do you find a generational block there? The older generation is much less tolerant of all this.

I think the older generation cut their political teeth in a very different atmosphere. It was all public meetings and actual personal contact where all this jingoism really worked. Today, the world has changed. I mean you have you tube and facebook 24 hour news channels and you don’t need to in think debase politics so much to get a point across. I think there is a far more educated voter who is willing to look at the merits.

•You have your own blog and a very popular one.

It gets along. It gets along.

•Tell me some of the most interesting interactions you have had on it.

There has been a lot of very critical ones. So it keeps my feet firmly planted on the ground. I am very careful to try and let through

•What is the nastiest thing someone said to you?

I am not going to get into those because those get really nasty. It goes down to actually physically abusive.

•Threats and things?

Threats I can live with. Threats are I mean look around me. Threats are part of normal life. It actually comes down to being abusive about my grandmother and my mother and things like that. So that’s as bad as threats.

•And whats the nicest thing that somebody’s said?

That I should be prime minister.

•Well I mean that you know I think the most important thing you said was your opening line ‘I speak as a Muslim and as an Indian’. Because the subtext was where is the distinction?

There isn’t one. Nor there should be one. We are not two different nations. We are not two different nationalities.

•And you know, allow me to say this but for a kashmiri muslim that too a kashmiri muslim in public life to say this requires lot of courage.

Well we have been saying it. You look at my father’s statements. You look at my statements. We have made no distinction between the two. Nor should there be one. I am not one to shy away from where I come from, what my origins are, the passport that I carry. Why should I be hypocritical about it? Theres absolutely no need. I think its better for people to base their judgements on the facts available to them. I tell the people of Jammu &Kashmir, look this is where I come from, this is who I am, I believe in the Constitution of India. Lets go forward from there. And that’s it.

•And if Kashmir has a special status, its because of Constitution of India.

Sure, and that’s the special status we would like to see strengthened further. But that’s a different matter all together.

•And what happens when you say this to kashmiris on other side of Line of Control?

They know where I come from as well. They recognise that I have a position. I have taken it and I am willing to argue with them. You convince me or I convince you and lets see where we go.

•You were a participant in some track two processes at some point. Did you get a sense that Pakistanis now, particularly under General Musharraf are realistic about the situation?

I believe so. I think we missed a golden opportunity to put some traction into this peace process.

•Around what time?

About two years ago when I first visited Pakistan.

•Under this government?

Absolutely, under this government. I think there was a lot more possibility of moving forward and I think we relied too much on track two to try and narrow the differences. I think we got pretty far but then Gen. Musharraf got caught up in his own problems.

•What is pretty far? You think Pakistanis were willing to look at a solution along the line of control?

I would like to think so. You saw the same in Gen. Musharraf’s statements as well. Lines cant be redrawn, will be made irrelevant. We can have joint coordination mechanisms, free movement of people etc etc. I think we were working towards narrowing these differences.

• Why do you say we were? Do you think that opportunity is lost?

For the time being, unfortunately yes. From being all and all in Pakistan today Gen Musharraf is one of 5 or 6 people in control there. Dr. Manmohan Singh is now not in a position to push anything radical because at the end of the day you are gonna have to come back to the Parliament and overturn that resolution in that existed parliament on Kashmir. So therefore for the time being I think, its going to be a lot of dialogue.

•And for that to happen congress and BJP have to talk?

They will have to talk.

•They cant have this hostile relationship?

Its not gonna work otherwise. Both have to recognise that this peace process is not the brainchild of Dr Manmohan Singh. He inherited it from prime minister Mr. Vajpayee and he has taken it forward. If it has to reach its logical conclusion, obviously prime minister Vajpayee had something in mind when hesuggested it, if it has to reach that logical conclusion, these two sides are going to have to work together. Otherwise its not going to happen.

•What Mr Vajpayee had in mind was also something along the line of control?

I wouldn’t know. That’s obviously something he knows more than I do. But certainly there is no solution possible to Kashmir if either side has to loose face. If India or Pakistan emerge out of the solution as the losers, its not going to work.

•What about the Kashmiris?

At the end of the day the Kashmiris on both sides must come out as winners. They must be made to feel that they got something out of this process. India and Pakistan don’t necessarily have to loose for that to happen.

•And there’s plenty of sort of innovative ideas available to make sure that this happens without any exchange of territories?

We have had innovative ideas. You had them from the Pakistani leadership, you had Dr Manmohan Singh talking about them when he made two trips to Amritsar and made public speeches there, largely directed towards Pakistan. Sure there are formulations that can be played around with. Don’t think that’s a problem.

•Omar before we conclude we have Rashtrapati Bhawan in front of us. It reminds me of something you posted on your blog once. You got very upset when President Pratibha Patil posed with an AK-47, captured AK-47 from the militants.

I wasn’t upset. I think what I wanted to do was to make the point that things get interpreted very differently in Kashmir and we have to be very careful how

•Stop or my mother will shoot

Yes well, I quoted a very bad Slyester Stallone movie, just to make a point. But the point I was trying to make was that we need to be careful with the signal or the message that we send out and in Kashmir, standing with an AK 47 President Patil smiling, I think sent out a wrong message to people that have been bearing the brunt of the gun. I would have much preferred what I have been seeing in the last few days of her sitting with children and talking to them. I think that would have sent a positive message to the people.

•I think sometimes the spin doctors get carried away.

I think unfortunately in this case what I heard was that President Patil asked how much do they carry when they come across and somebody gave an astronomical figure. She said but how much does one of these guns weigh? They said, well why don’t you see. So she picked it up to check how much it weighed and the photographs were clicked. And the rest is history.

•You know the other thing is, the other image that’s caused a little bit of tension in the rest of the country is all these massive demonstrations, the public outpouring of anger on the Amarnath issue and then you made such a strong statement on Amarnath issue. You know there has been an echo on the Jammu side saying that you don’t know what you are talking about. Where exactly do you stand and what happened?

For me, the very simple question is why does the land need to be transferred. If you can make a credible case to me, why suddenly the Amarnath yatra has to be confined to 800 kanals of forest land rather than the entire stretch of 100 acres of forest land, rather than the entire government land that is at disposal. I will be the first person to give you this land but nobody has been able to explain tome why it has to be reduced to a 100 acres. For a 130 years this yatra has gone ahead. For as long as I can remember government has made infrastructure available. For as long as I can remember common kashmiri has risen to help whenever there has been a natural disaster or a problem.

•Including the caretakers of the temple?

Absolutely, even the caretakers of the cave.

• They are Muslims?

Yes they are. And the people who carry the yatris on their shoulders. They are Muslims. When there is a natural disaster it’s the muslims who open up their homes. Even during the turmoil, a person with who I have absolutely no political equation with Syed Aleesha Geelani, he goes to the extent of making a public appeal that don’t target yatris, make sure nothing happens to the yatris. They are guests. The flipside of it is what you see in Jammu. BJP activists burning Muslim gujjars homes, just to make a political point. This is wrong. I keep asking this question why do you need that 100 acres of land when the government is willing to build you any infrastructure you need.

•On that you have no issues?

I have no issues whatsoever. Our governments have built infrastructure. Mufti Syed’s government has built infrastructure. Ghulam Nabi Azad’s government committed to built infrastructure. We have no problems.

•Tell me about that, you are also bitter rivals you and PDP, but you are also great friends I believe. You and Mehbooba.

We get along when we meet. When the political rhetoric dies down, its not so bad.

•That’s interesting because politics is often the antidote for so many bad things in life. Isn’t it?

It is. As I said, the unfortunate thing between me and Mehbooba is that our arguments in public do tend to go a little low. We should really keep it on a slightly higher plane.

•Do you sometimes laugh about it when you meet on a fight or you meet?

Occasionally otherwise just a wry smile.

•Of work hours?

Yeah.

•I think Omar you know what you have done with this speech is that not only have you burst on the national scene but you have raised expectations now and you have to live up to them.

That’s one of the most overwhelming parts of it.

•All the best to you. We will all be watching. And we are all members of your ever increasing fan club.

Thank you very much.