[Reader-list] Interview: Kashmir Hurriyat Conference Media Cell-Incharge: G.H.Majrooh

[Yogi Sikand]

Ghulam Hasan Majrooh is the Press Secretary of the All-Parties'
Hurriyat Conference (Mirwaiz), a conglomerate of
various political parties in Jammu and Kashmir supporting the right to
Kashmir self-determination. He is also the General Secretary of the
Ittihadul Muslimeen, a largely Shia political party, whose Chief Patron
is the senior Kashmiri leader, Maulana Abbas Ansari. In this interview
with Yoginder Sikand, he talks about his work and about media
perceptions and depictions of the Kashmir conflict.

Q: What exactly is the work that your media cell does?
A: We report human rights violations as well as activities related to
our movement for self-determination and react to statements issued by
political parties and leaders related to the issue of Jammu and
Kashmir. We send these reports to various newspapers and news agencies
as well as carry them on our newly set-up website www.hurriyat.net.

Q: What do you feel about media reporting about the Kashmir issue?
A: With a few exceptions, neither the Indian nor the Western media
depicts the issue in a proper light or represents the voices of the
majority of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The dominant Western
media, for instance, has its own interests. They do not have sympathy
for the subjugated Kashmiris. America is interested principally in
expanding its markets and promoting its commercial and strategic
interests, and since India is such a huge potential market for the
West, the Western media would not like to oppose the Indian stance on
Kashmir. So, increasingly, our legitimate struggle for
self-determination is being wrongly branded in the media as
'terrorism', in the Indian and Western media.

Q: You mention that your media cell reports instances of human rights
violations in Kashmir by agencies of the state. But what about similar
violations by militants?
A: The Hurriyat Conference is very clear that all forms of terrorism,
no matter who perpetrates it, is thoroughly condemnable. The killing
of innocents, no matter what their religion, is a heinous crime,
something that Islam roundly denounces. In the past, when some
innocent Hindus in our state have been killed we have issued
statements condemning this.

Q: In the independent Jammu and Kashmir that you seek, what status
would the religious minorities, such as Sikhs, Buddhists, Dalits and
Hindus, enjoy?
A: Religious minorities would have equal rights. They are also part
and parcel of our land, our culture and our history. We are not
against the Hindus, unlike what the media portrays. To cite a recent
instance, just three weeks ago, senior Hurriyat leaders went to Kheer
Bhavani, the most important Pandit shrine in Kashmir, where they met
with Pandits who had come to celebrate a festival and wished them on
the occasion. I have some Pandit neighbours and we go to each others'
homes and enjoy very cordial relations. The Kashmiri Pandits are part
of our Kashmiri culture, they are our brethren. They must live here,
because Kashmir is also their homeland. So, we want them to return and
they have also the right to. The issue of Kashmir is not simply a
Muslim one. It is an issue of the people of Jammu and Kashmir as a
whole.

Q: But do you think that as long as violence continues the Pandits will
return?
A: We certainly want them back. However, we cannot give them any
guarantee of safety, just as we Kahsmiri Muslims have no such
guarantee in the presence of some seven hundred thousand Indian troops
in our state.

Q: Do you think a peaceful solution of the Kashmir dispute is indeed
possible?
A: This is precisely what we want. The head of the Hurriyat Conference,
Mirwaiz Umar
Farooq, has said that in the changed global context, particularly after
9/11, dialogue, not war, is the only way out. War cannot be a solution
as that will lead to total destruction, now that both India and
Pakistan are nuclear powers. India must recognize that Kashmir is a
disputed issue. If the Indian and Pakistani leadership want to save
the region from destruction they must solve the Kashmir dispute in
accordance with the aspirations of the people of the state of Jammu
and Kashmir, because otherwise nuclear war is a real possibility.
Unfortunately, however, although we have had three rounds of talks
with Indian leaders, there has been no real positive response from
their side.

I think Musharraf's four-point formula is worth considering as a
starting point for a gradual and peaceful solution of the conflict.
The Hurriyat Conference supports this. President Musharraf has talked
about demilitarization and joint management of Jammu and Kashmir and
soft borders.

Q: But the other faction of the Hurriyat Conference, headed by Sayyed Ali
Shah
Gilani, has a different perception, isn't it?
A: Gilani Sahib is an elder, a leader, and we respect him. Although he
argues that dialogue cannot provide a solution, we say otherwise. But
we ultimately have the same goal in mind. Gilani says that Indian
forces should first leave Kashmir and then talks can be arranged. The
Mirwaiz puts it somewhat differently. He says that we'll dialogue with
India, have talks with them, and convince them to leave Kashmir.

Q: But what sort of solution do you envisage?
A: The solution has to satisfy all three parties to the Jammu and
Kashmir dispute—Pakistan, India and the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir.
India must live up to its promise of allowing the people of Jammu and
Kashmir to determine their own political future. India's first Prime
Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, made such a public promise and even took
the Kashmir issue to the United Nations, where again he vowed that
India would live up to this promise.

Q: But how does one satisfy the aspirations of the people of Jammu and
Kashmir, given the tremendous diversity in the state, in terms of
religion, caste, sect and ethnicity?
A: True, this is a very difficult task. But such a solution must
necessarily be arrived at through dialogue. This is very much possible
if all parties are sincere. Any solution of the issue must be
acceptable to all the people of the state—not just the Kashmiris, but
also to people living in Jammu, Ladakh, Gilgit, Baltistan and other
parts of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Q: The Hurriyat Conference projects itself as the principal
representative of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. But is that really
true? For instance, are the Ladakhi Buddhists or the Hindus of Jammu
with you?
A: We don't say that all the people of Jammu or Ladakh are with us.
What we do say, however, is that the issue of the political status of
the state is of concern to them as well. Their future is linked to the
larger problem of Jammu and Kashmir and so we must take them along
with us.

Q: You advocate an independent Jammu and Kashmir, but what if the
people of Jammu or Ladakh do not wish to join such an entity?
A: That is an issue that will be tackled when it comes up. We must
take the opinions of people in Jammu and Ladakh and if they do not
want to be in Kashmir we can see what to do. But our point is that the
whole of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed territory, not just the Kashmir
valley. We would like an arrangement that all peoples of Jammu and
Kashmir can agree on and which would ensure the unity of the state.

Q: But do you seriously feel that the people of Jammu and Ladakh would
like to live in what may be a Kashmiri-dominated state?
A: If so many different communities can live together in India, then
why not in an independent Jammu and Kashmir? But, in future, if some
groups want to be separate, that is an issue that can be decided then.

Q: Some militant groups involved in the armed conflict in Kashmir
characterize the conflict as essentially religious, rather than
political. They see it as a war between Islam and 'disbelief' (kufr).
What do you say about this way of understanding the conflict?
A: This characterization of the conflict is wrong. The roots of the
conflict go back to 1947, when the Hindu majority parts of India
became the Indian Dominion and the Muslim-majority areas became
Pakistan. So, it is a political issue. Or, should I say, going beyond
that, it is a human issue, a humanitarian issue, one related to the
basic human right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine
their own political future.

Q: Do you think religious extremists in both India and Pakistan,
Muslim as well as Hindu, would ever allow for a peaceful resolution of
the Kashmir issue?
A: Some such extremist elements in both countries, of course, do not
want such a solution, but then many ordinary political leaders, too,
feel the same way. There are also some agencies in both countries that
are very active in Kashmir and who want to see the continuation of the
conflict, because their own vested interests are linked to this.

Q: The Indian media generally projects political groups such as yours
as 'anti-Indian' and 'anti-Hindu'. How do you respond to this charge?
A: This is wholly wrong. We have no hatred for ordinary Hindus or
Indians. We love the Indian people. We have no quarrel with them. Many
Hindus come to Kashmir, to work or for travel, and they are treated
with respect by ordinary Kashmiris. We are only opposed to the Indian
state for denying us our inherent right to political
self-determination. We are all for peace, but with freedom and
justice. We want India to prosper, but it must act on its promise to
let the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine their own political
future.

Q: What are your views on recent developments in Pakistan that have
led to increasing instability there—for instance, the recent massacre
at the Lal Masjid in Islamabad?
A: I don't think it is right that some people hold others hostage in a
mosque and say they will establish an Islamic state thereby. How can
that be?

Q: But what do you feel about the way Musharraf handled the Lal Masjid
issue?
A: Pakistan is an independent country, and so if the government feels
that its security is under threat it has the right to respond. It's
their own issue.

Q: And what about happenings elsewhere in the Muslim world, such as
Iraq? The Ittiehadul Muslimeen, of which you are General Secretary, is
largely Shia in composition. How do you recent events in Pakistan and
Iraq? What do these mean for the Shias and for Shia-Sunni relations
there as well as in Kashmir?

A: In Pakistan there have been some attacks on Shias, but the majority
of the Pakistani people are opposed to this sort of communal violence.
The United States, however, is bent on fuelling Shia-Sunni conflicts,
to divide and rule. This they are trying in Iraq, for instance.
However, the Iraqi Shia religious leadership has been opposing this
effort. Ayatollah Seistani, the most popular Iraqi Shia leader, has
consistently appealed to the Shias not to fall prey to American
machinations and to seek to maintain brotherly relations with the
country's Sunnis.

Q: How do you look at the way that Arab governments, mostly closely
allied to the United States, have responded to American imperialist
aggression in Iraq?
A: It is really tragic that leaders of many Muslim countries are not
raising their voices against this. They have mortgaged their
countries, their resources and even their religion to the United
States, having become its slaves. But this will not last long,
God-willing. Look, for instance, at the recent victory of the
Hizbullah. The Muslim masses are awakening. Our greatest problem are
our Muslim leaders, who are primarily responsible for weakening the
Muslims.

Q: Since you raise the issue of Hizbullah in the context of the
anti-imperialist struggle, what do you feel about fatwas delivered by
certain influential Saudi Wahhabi ulema denouncing the Hizbullah,
principally because it is a largely Shia movement and because Shias
are considered as apostates and heretics by many Wahhabis?
A: If some maulvis' views are such, if they are against the welfare of
Islam and the Muslims, they are enemies of Islam, even if they might
be considered to be great Saudi religious scholars. They are
made-in-America mullahs, misinterpreting Islam to serve American
interests. It is easy to buy the allegiance and even the faith of such
people. If Indian scientists can sell secrets to Pakistan, then such
mullahs, whose faith is weak, can easily manufacture such fatwas to
serve the interests of their bosses. The United States that is the
biggest terrorist force in the world. It is spreading terrorism in the
name of combating it. And those in the Muslim world who support its
imperialist policies, directly or indirectly, including such mullahs,
are working against the interests of the Muslims.


Q: How do you respond to charges in the media that seek to link Islam
with terrorism? In particular, what do you feel about the way in which
the Kashmir conflict is increasingly being presented in the media as
what is labeled as 'Islamic terrorism', rather than as a national
liberation struggle?
A: Islam is being wrongly interpreted as being synonymous with
terrorism, while actually it teaches quite the opposite. It stands for
peace and justice for all. The unrest in much of the Muslim world owes
principally to widespread oppressive conditions that prevail there.
The media is making things immensely worse through negative portrayals
of Islam and Muslims. Any Muslim who sports a beard is immediately
dubbed as a 'fundamentalist'. And in our case, our struggle for
freedom is wrongly branded as 'Islamic extremism' in order to
delegitimise it. When people rise up in revolt against oppression,
they are branded as 'terrorists'. Indian Army sources claim that there
are only 1500 militants in Kashmir, but if that is the case then why
are there more than seven hundred thousand Indian armed forces
stationed here? Why have these forces been given draconian powers?
What about the thousands of our people who have been killed, maimed,
loicked up in jails or have disappeared? They are victims of state
terrorism.

At the global level, media portrayals of Muslims must also be seen in
the context of the interests of the Zionist and right-wing Christian
lobbies, which are so influential today in America. They will not
spare any opportunity to defame Islam, and this is reflected in the
media, too. They have their own missionary agenda. They want to weaken
Islam and Muslims, so that they can enjoy untrammeled global hegemony.

In Kashmir, too, these forces are playing themselves out. The Indian
media wrongly projects our struggle as an instance of 'religious
extremism'. It has sought to present it as a communal conflict, which
is not the case. In order to thus brand it and delegitimise it in the
eyes of the Indian people, and globally as well, the first thing that
India did was to drive the Pandits out of Kashmir, in order to project
the view that our demand was anti-Hindu, which was not the case. If
you want to destroy a people, you need to destroy their culture, and
this is precisely what has happened in Kashmir. The forced migration
of the Pandits, engineered by the then governor Jagmohan, was a major
effort to destroy our Kashmiri culture and ethos which binds the
Muslims and Pandits of Kashmir together.


Ghulam Hasan Majrooh can be contacted on ghmajrooh at yahoo.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/defanged-159
Size: 17230 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20070725/c47ebfb5/attachment.bin