[Reader-list] Dr Kaul, Geelani's saviour

[Aditya Raj Baul]

The Kashmiri Pandit who saved Geelani's life


October 11, 2010 19:00 IST
http://news.rediff.com/special/2010/oct/11/special-kashmiri-pandit-who-saved-separatist-leader-geelanis-life.htm


Dr Sameer Kaul, a Kashmiri Pandit and Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah
Geelani's [ Images ] personal physician, speaks about the other side
of the hardline separatist.
Two men at the heart of Kashmiri separatism -- hardliner Syed Ali Shah
Geelani and Yasin Malik, leader of the Jammu and Kashmir [ Images ]
Liberation Front -- are alive today thanks to doctors from the
Kashmiri Pandit community, which was forced to flee the valley with
the onslaught of militancy in 1989.


Some years ago, a team of three doctors performed life-saving surgery
on Geelani, now 81, in Mumbai [ Images ] after he was diagnosed with
cancer.

Geelani survives on three-fourth of a kidney, and one of the doctors
is now his personal physician.

As someone who interacts with Geelani regularly, Dr Sameer Kaul is
probably better placed than anyone else to observe the real man behind
the stubborn politician we know about.

Speaking to Rediff.com's Krishnakumar Padmanabhan, not only does Dr
Kaul give us an intimate view of Geelani, he also provides valuable
insights into the current unrest, and how Delhi [ Images ] can rectify
mistakes of the past.

I am quite close to Geelanisaab, as a doctor should be. But my
interaction with him is mostly restricted to medical discourse.

As a person, he is non-corrupt and upright. He has conviction.

He is disciplined and is a very meagre eater. He doesn't follow the
philosophy of consumption in life. He is satisfied with the basic
things.

That must have helped him in becoming incorruptible.

I didn't know him personally before the surgery.

In my childhood, I used to ask my father who he was. My father used to
say he is the man who says 'Kashmir banega Pakistan.' Such a man is
anathema for me.

But when I saw that even after 20 years he had not changed his stand
and said the same thing, I respect that.

When we met he started by offering me my fee.

I reminded him about this and told him that I respect him for his
steadfastness though I did not agree with his philosophy.

He just had a smile and kept quiet.

He was called for a interview before that for a US visa. When he was
asked questions about his political beliefs, he said he is against
American policy. He was very forthright.

What does that tell you? He didn't lie for the sake of going to the
US. He is beyond that.

There are very few things you can hide from your doctor. So I can
vouch that he lives a spartan life and so does his family.

After an operation in Delhi, he was living in a cramped quarters with
his daughter in Malviya Nagar. I warned him he might get an infection.

But he told me that if he shifted, his daughter might be heartbroken
that her house was not good enough for her father and he stayed put.

Such a fellow has to be humane.

Things like this is why I find a large part of his public image
discordant. He is always with a smile. He is not a wimpy patient.

I do not concern myself with his political affiliation and ideology,
but I find him to be an honest and sincere man to his people, which is
a far cry from what we get these days.

Eighty per cent of Kashmiris will not agree with his ideology, but
they respect him for being non-corrupt.

They have seen all their other leaders get corrupted at some point or
the other. In these two decades of strife, he is the only guy whose
influence and respect among the people has only increased.

I have seen all the chief ministers of the state in recent times and
interacted with almost every other politician.

I think a major reason for that is that he is not concerned with petty
politicking and doesn't get down to the nitty-gritty.

He keeps reading and writing books, and is busy translating Islamic texts.

He lives in a spartan home. A lot of people put up spartan exteriors,
but are quite different on the inside. But in his case, having been
close to him for two decades, he is nothing like that. And you can't
hide those things forever.

I think he is a man of convictions who has been forced into a
particular situation. I admire him for sticking to it. I don't know
too many politicians who stick to their convictions for long.

To top that, he is extremely humble and not greedy.

He is not into dynastics and does not seek any favours for his
children or sons-in-law. Neither is he into shady deals nor does he
have any secret benami property.

One thing I have always thought is that he was never handled well. He
was just labeled as an anti-India hawk and thus, he continues to be
called so.

In reality he is quite a soft guy. I do not agree with the picture
that is being painted about him.

I think he has always been put in a reactionary situation -- you do
something and he has no way else but to react to it.

He has always been pushed to a corner, where the only thing that he
can do is react in the way he has.

He has been demonised throughout. I don't think he had any option.

There is also the angle that he is the only one who did not bend and
dance to your (New Delhi's) tunes.

I have so many patients who have seen him and they can't believe he is
the same guy they see and hear about in the news.

I am basically a Sufi at heart. Which is not what he adheres to, and I
don't mix two things together.

We disagreed only once. There was a Sufi saint who died three months
ago. They used to call him the naked fakir. Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs
throng to his place. I visited him often.

Once he (Geelani) tried to tell me that it was not right. I told him
it was my philosophy and was best left alone. After that, not once did
he ever touch that topic.

Among his greatest strengths are that he is humble, sober,
incorruptible, and a man of principles, convictions and discipline.

In the last 18 years, I have been doing a free (medical) camp in
Srinagar [ Images ].

I don't think even a Muslim politician can venture out today. If you
go on to the roads, you can be pulled out and skinned.

For a Kashmiri Pandit to tell you that, it has a big meaning. A part
of it is that what you give is what comes back to you.

When I conduct my camps -- I don't take any security with me as I have
never perceived a threat -- never do I get the feeling of not being
wanted.

I think it is because I do not believe Kashmiris are fundamentalists.
Only 10 to 15 per cent are.

What is actually happening on the ground is that a sustained class war
is going on there.

Simultaneously, there is also the phenomenon of one kind of Islam
trying to overtake another kind of Sufi Islam.

In the last 15 days I have heard from many Kashmiri friends that their
houses are being targeted.

What is happening is that a frustrated section is taking out its anger
on a well-off section. He doesn't like what he sees, and so sets out
to destroy it.

What worries me is that it is now even worse than 1989. Then, a lot of
people got into it because there was a romanticism associated with it.

Today, what you see is extreme anger.

The central political system was in deep slumber. Everything was going
on under the surface and nobody woke up to it.

Regarding Geelani's role in the current unrest, I am sure a lot of
what is happening outside is beyond his control.

He wouldn't get children out (on the streets of Kashmir), that is
absolutely not on in his book. I can't believe that. I don't think
that can be true.

He appealed for calm and there was a lot of dissent against that. I
can't speak about where is it coming from and who is supporting that.

I still maintain my home in Srinagar. I have not moved out. I am part
of that society.

As to whether he had a role in the persecution of Pandits, when there
is a mass exodus, massive things happen on a large scale, you can't
single out things. You have to rise above these things.

And if he was so anti-Pandit he wouldn't have come to me. I am a neutral Sufi.

I believe he probably participated in the movement against the Pandits
because his philosophy is fundamentalist.

But there is an action-reaction situation also.

The Pandits, while they were there, did not exactly have a positive
disposition towards him ever.

When you get relegated to a corner, you realise there is only one
place open. You stay alive and occupy the space.

Regarding the way he was treated he speaks about past experiences when
he says he was approached, but things never happened.

Had he been approached and accommodated, we would not be here today.
All the time that the valley was fine, the government did nothing.

We are only worried when the house catches fire. And people also
realise that to get your attention, they have to burn something.

This is the same story in the Maoist belt also if I am not mistaken.

When it comes to Kashmir, I believe in soft power, which is the
non-political space. It is non-utilised in Kashmir.

We have only shown the hard face of India [ Images ] to the Kashmiris.

If you realise the way our government functions it is not exactly a
straightforward situation.

As a nation -- this is my personal view -- we have never had a
comprehensive and continuous policy towards Kashmir. It changes with
various desks that handle Kashmir, and has always been discontinuous.

If you talk about indoctrination, that starts at the age of 4 in rural
schools. But we have never had a comprehensive group of dedicated
people whose only motive is to keep Kashmir with the Union.

Had that happened, would we be in this situation today after 63 years?

THE GEELANI INTERVIEWS: 2000: 'They are killing the democracy in
Kashmir to save the democracy in India'
2002: 'India has to accept Kashmir as a disputed territory'
2004: 'LoC will be dismantled like the Berlin Wall'
2008: 'Why object to Islamic rule in Kashmir?'