[Reader-list] 'Why object to Islamic rule in Kashmir' - The Geelani interview

[Kshmendra Kaul]

If, any deserving to be taken seriously voice were to say that 'India should be declared as a Hindu country', there would be many a million voices (including mine) that would stridently condemn such a statement, that would be gravitated to campaign for and garner widespread public opinion against such a statement.
 
We would find some of the most brilliantly argued, impressively articulate, eloquent and even 'wordy' dismissals of such a statement in SARAI itself.
 
On SARAI we have quite a few brilliantly argumentatitive, impressively articulate, eloquent and often wordy opinions expressed in favour of the 'separatists' of Kashmir. Surprisingly, they are rather muted in their comments about Geelani's position. Demure almost in their referring to him in-passing and generally conveying the impression that the Geelani (and his support base) position is not of any real significance and of not much consequence in the "separatist movement". That tells me (at least), how much these people are in touch with the 'realities' of Kashmir or the "separatist movement".
 
These people who are so sworn to talk and act against India and in favour of the "separatist movement" do not seem to be bothered about the implications of the "Geelani position" for both the "separatist movement" and for Kashmir whether Kashmir continues to be spliced up between India and Pakistan, or it gains Independence or becomes a part of Pakistan.
 
'These people' do not, at least publicly, show the courage to analyse and commentate upon the "Geelani position" and it's implications. 
 
Increasingly I get the impression that 'these people' whether on SARAI or elsewhere have the attitude "We really do not care what happens to Kashmir afterwards, but we want India to set Kashmir free". 
 
Mirwaiz Omar Farooq is no different from Geelani even if he has been brilliantly devious in selling his 'secular' platform to 'these people'. One would ask how 'secular' is it when political speeches are made from the pulpit? How 'secular' is it when you go to the OIC to garner support for your 'movement'. Geelani at least is honest.
 
Some interesting statements by Geelani (MY COMMENTS ARE BRACKETED):
 
-  I know the schools (OPENED BY THE ARMY) are meant for Kashmiris. But they are also meant to make them sing Vande Mataram and not offer namaz. The aim of these schools is to turn Kashmiri children into pure Indians. This is cultural aggression on our Islamic values and is not acceptable to us.
 
-  While I am for Kashmir going to Pakistan, there are voices that seek independence from both India and Pakistan. I also agree that there are people in Kashmir who would like to go with India. They argue that India has done so much for Kashmir. Others are fascinated by its secularism and democracy. (BAD BAD SECULARISM. BAD BAD DEMOCRACY)
 
- I have a three-point target. First is to impose an Islamic nizam (jurisprudence) in Kashmir. (THERE IS NO SUCH JURISPRUDENCE COMMONLY ACCEPTED BY ALL MUSLIMS) Islam should govern our lives, be it in our political thought (WHO WOULD BE THE AMEER? WHO WOULD THE KHALIFA BE? FROM WHERE?), socio-economic plans (THAT I WOULD ANY DAY HOPE IS IMPLEMENTED IN INDIA), culture (GIVEN GEELANI'S SECT, THAT WOULD BE GOODBYE MUSIC, GOODBYE SONGS, GOODBYE TELEVISION/CINEMA, GOODBYE THE MUCH ADVERTISED KASHMIR SUFISM) or the ongoing movement.
 
-  The creed of socialism and secularism (BOTH ARE CURSES IT SEEMS) should not touch our lives and we must be totally governed by the Koran and the Sunnat (precedents from Prophet Mohammad's life). (THERE IS NO SUNNAH THAT IS COMMONLY ACCEPTED BY ALL MUSLIMS. WOULD LEAD TO INTERESTING TIMES)
 
- Secondly, I have been propagating that we must fight against anti-Islamic forces. These forces come in our way under the garb of nationalists, secularists, racists, linguistic chauvinists, and so on.
 
Kshmendra
 
 
'Why object to Islamic rule in Kashmir'
 
August 25, 2008




The allotment of land for the Amarnath shrine board was a trigger for the azadi sentiment in Kashmir, Hurriyat Conference Chairman Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who has emerged a crowd-puller among the separatist leaders, tells Aasha Khosa. 
 
Q:   We all know the history of Kashmiri separatism but what was the immediate provocation for the ongoing massive protests? 
 
A:   The upsurge has not happened suddenly. The sentiment for azadi was always there. However, the transfer of 50 acres of forest land to the Amarnath shrine board made Kashmiris realise once again how insecure they feel. This acted as a trigger. Suddenly, people have started thinking about the 100,000 acres of land that is with the army. 
 
Under the guise of "Operation Sadhbhavana," the army has usurped huge parcels of land and seems to be expanding its network. I have information that the army has seized 23 acres of land for opening a school in Pahalgam. 
 
Q:   The schools being opened by the army are for Kashmiri children. Why object to this? 
 
A:   I know the schools are meant for Kashmiris. But they are also meant to make them sing Vande Mataram and not offer namaz. The aim of these schools is to turn Kashmiri children into pure Indians. This is cultural aggression on our Islamic values and is not acceptable to us. In fact, apart from fighting for the right to self-determination for 62 years, we have also been fighting against the cultural aggression by India. 
 
Q:   So the transfer of land is not the real issue as many have been saying. 
 
A:   Yes, they are right. Land is not an issue for us. It has just acted as a catalyst to shape peoples' sentiments into an upsurge. 
 
Q:   There are differences even among the separatists -- some raise the slogan of azadi while people like you want Kashmir to go with Pakistan. How do you resolve this dilemma among yourself, beyond your occasional shows of unity? 
 
A:   Our unity is based on a single point -- implementation of the United Nations resolutions on Kashmir (which ask India and Pakistan to hold a plebiscite in undivided Jammu & Kashmir to find out if the people of the state want to be with India or Pakistan). However, I do agree that there are differences among us. 
 
While I am for Kashmir going to Pakistan, there are voices that seek independence from both India and Pakistan. I also agree that there are people in Kashmir who would like to go with India. They argue that India has done so much for Kashmir. Others are fascinated by its secularism and democracy. But then we must not forget that there were discordant notes even when Indians fought the British. 
 
Q: Your party, the Tehreek-e-Hurriyat, has expanded its network. What precisely do you stand for? 
 
A:   Ever since my release from prison on August 7, 2004, I have been spreading my message across Kashmir. I have a three-point target. First is to impose an Islamic nizam (jurisprudence) in Kashmir. Islam should govern our lives, be it in our political thought, socio-economic plans, culture or the ongoing movement. 
 
The creed of socialism and secularism should not touch our lives and we must be totally governed by the Koran and the Sunnat (precedents from Prophet Mohammad's life). 
Secondly, I have been propagating that we must fight against anti-Islamic forces. These forces come in our way under the garb of nationalists, secularists, racists, linguistic chauvinists, and so on. 
 
Thirdly, I have been telling the youth to work for the right to self-determination which is granted to them by the United Nations. I have been drawing huge support from the youth for this as a result of which you see lakhs of people on the roads today. 
 
Q:   In essence, Osama bin Laden's crusade to establish Islamic rule across the globe seems no different from yours. 
 
A:   Osama has come only during the last few years. People like me have been fighting for this all our lives. I do not want to be compared with Osama. 
 
Q:   Your differences with the All Parties Hurriyat Conference came to the fore recently when you tried to project yourself as the sole leader of the (separatist) movement. What made you issue a public apology later? 
 
A:   During the last four years, I have been holding public rallies all over Kashmir. I have a routine -- first I explain my three-point programme to the audience, then I ask them if they agree to the idea of the movement having a single leader, and finally, people raise slogans favouring me as their sole leader. 
 
This is what happened at the public rally with the Hurriyat leaders. Some of the Hurriyat leaders did not like my being endorsed as a leader by the crowd and walked out. It was my moral duty to apologise to them and I did.
 
Q:   Are you talking about Kashmir alone or the entire state, which includes Hindus and Buddhists, both of whom would not like to live in an Islamic dispensation of your dreams? 
 
A:   I want the right to self-determination for the entire territory of Jammu & Kashmir, including the areas under Pakistan. Let people decide once and for all which country they want to be with. The question of imposing an Islamic rule is different. Why do people object to it? If America and India can have democratic rule, others can have Communism, why object to the Islamic rule? 
 
Q:   How bothered are you about the agitation in Jammu, where leaders are angry precisely about this point: Kashmiri leaders' hidden agenda behind the Amarnath land controversy? 
 
A:   Jammu's people are working on communal lines. But it is a fact that the transfer of land is not the core issue for us.









Q:   But India and Pakistan are working on solutions other than giving Kashmir the right to self-determination. What are your objections? 
 
A:   Pakistan has extended all support to us so far. The India-Pakistan dialogue is nothing new. In fact, the two have held 130 rounds of peace talks since 1952. What have they achieved so far? India is just biding its time in Kashmir by prolonging the dialogue with Pakistan. It won't achieve anything. 
 
Q:   If the recent protests led by you and the Hurriyat leaders are true indicators of your popular support, why not contest elections and prove it? 
 
A:   Elections were never on our agenda and our stand has not changed on this. We believe in boycotting of the elections.
 
http://specials.rediff.com/news/2008/aug/25sd1.htm