Considered among the more moderate of Kashmiri separatist leaders, 32-year-old Hurriyat Conference Chairman Mirwaiz Umer Farooq has taken a strident stand in deciding to stay away from the roundtable talks called by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, calling them immature and harmful to the peace process. He has been accused of toeing the Pakistani line on Kashmir but insists that unlike General Musharraf, the Government of India seems to have lost its way on the issue. In an interview with RIYAZ WANI, the Mirwaiz says the Hurriyat is all for talks, but with a vision: Your refusal to join the Prime Minister’s roundtable is seen as an about-turn by you on your commitment to dialogue with New Delhi. What went wrong? No, the Hurriyat stands by the dialogue process. We can never afford to back out. In fact, the initiative to start talks in 2004 wasn’t New Delhi’s alone. The Hurriyat went against the general drift of separatist politics in the Valley. And if ever this process is derailed, the Hurriyat will not be a cause for it. As for the roundtable on Kashmir, the Hurriyat is not averse to India talking to diverse political opinion in Kashmir but we think the conference was premature and ahead of its time under the circumstances. Gathering a mass of leadership from the state without any specific agenda would take us nowhere. It would only sharpen the political divide in Kashmir, confound and trivialise the otherwise serious nature of the effort to resolve Kashmir. For one, there is yet to be an intra-Kashmir dialogue, involving also the leadership from Azad Kashmir (PoK), to forge a consensus on the solution. The Hurriyat is for a roundtable involving all the parties to the Kashmir dispute — like the J-K leadership, people from Azad Kashmir, even Gilgit, besides India and Pakistan. Only such a conference, the Hurriyat thinks, would take us forward, and not a hastily arranged meeting of an assortment of leadership which is bound to misrepresent the conflict in the state. You seem to be growing closer to Pakistan and drifting away from New Delhi. Some reports even blame Pakistan for your refusal to participate in the roundtable. It is a matter of perception. The Hurriyat is for an acceptable and honourable settlement of Kashmir. Over the past some months President Pervez Musharraf has been very aggressive in peddling alternative options on Kashmir. Pakistan has shown flexibility and is ready to explore new ways to address the lingering dispute. The Hurriyat supports the spirit of Islamabad’s stance, and this doesn’t mean we are doing the bidding of that country. On the other hand, India went back on an established dialogue which the Hurriyat had joined amid a stridently hostile domestic political environment in Kashmir and when even Pakistan did not approve of the New Delhi-Srinagar engagement. We were labelled as traitors and people grew doubtful about our motives. I also suffered personally. My uncle was killed. There was a bomb attack on my residence. Islamia High School (the Valley’s respected private educational institution run by the Mirwaiz family) was burnt. But despite two years into the dialogue, there is not even the slightest incremental movement towards a favourable change in the ground situation, which not only undercuts the credibility of the process but also discredits the Hurriyat. At our last meeting on September 5, the Prime Minister had agreed that he would consider formal Hurriyat suggestions for Kashmir settlement in our second round, which we mutually agreed would be held within a month. But far from keeping the promise, New Delhi suddenly changed tack, diversified the dialogue and came up with the roundtable idea, which does not fit in the script and is out of context. Some major separatist leaders like Shabir Shah say they might have taken part in the roundtable if India had done the groundwork. Did the sudden decision to hold the conference influence your decision? The Hurriyat is not against roundtable in principle. But we want it to evolve naturally out of the dialogue process, not be imposed upon. Besides, we also want all the concerned parties to be represented. We do not draw a line on anybody. Among the many problems plaguing the talks between New Delhi and Kashmir is the question of a representative Kashmiri leadership. How can you lay claim to an exclusive dialogue with Centre when the scene is crowded with actors, and not all of them fake? The Hurriyat represents the separatist sentiment in J-K and has been fighting for it since its formation in 1993. We are not against or afraid of any electoral process but we don’t think a heavily militarised environment is conducive for a fair trial of strength. If the issue is to select a representative leadership, then elections to this end can only be held under suitable democratic safeguards like presence of international observers. Besides, we do not rail against India’s decision to rope in other separatists or for that matter any other opinion in Kashmir. The armed outfits operating in Kashmir say that the moderate Hurriyat leadership claims to be talking on their behalf with the Centre, when they haven’t authorised it to do so. Do you think the Hurriyat can rein the militants in if the dialogue process moves ahead? I want to make it clear that the Hurriyat can influence the militants. I met some of them during my Pakistan visit. If India moves towards Kashmir settlement, they (militants) will certainly fall in line. The Hurriyat vouches for it. I do not think it could be vice-versa. If a one-million strong force is combating about 2,000 armed fighters, which is a figure projected by the Indian media, we need not a third umpire to decide who will have to initiate the demilitarisation. The Hurriyat view on resolution of Kashmir has evolved over time and in fact it has faithfully followed President Musharraf’s evolving line. Now if Pakistan accepts autonomy as Kashmir solution, will Hurriyat follow suit? Let me rephrase — will Hurriyat draw a line on anything so far as a solution to Kashmir is concerned? I think pre-judging things will only harm the process of dialogue. The Hurriyat idea of Kashmir resolution needs no reiteration. It is unambiguous and unequivocal. We are for a solution outside the Indian Constitution. But we are also for an imaginative, consensus-based solution and will not come in the way of an evolving dialogue process till it reaches its logical end. The Hurriyat constitution itself authorises us to make efforts for a peaceful solution to Kashmir through a trilateral dialogue between India, Pakistan and Kashmiris. But we need a reciprocating, serious and responsive New Delhi to keep the momentum going.
