Sunday, 26 June 2011

Grounded for 5 years, will he ever fly again?

BABA UMAR
WHY: Arrested on the purported charges of being a Lashkar-e- Toiba operative planning to carry out 9/11-style terror attacks in the country. He was sent to Tihar Jail.
WHEN: 15 November 2006.
WHERE: Dwarka, New Delhi.
Imran Ahmad Kirmani
Photo: Fahad Shah
ANYBODY ACCUSED of crime is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. But Kashmiri youth Imran Ahmad Kirmani didn’t enjoy that luxury. For nearly five years, the aeronautical engineer was left to cool his heels inside the notorious Tihar jail on the cooked-up charges of being a terrorist who was planning a 9/11-style attack in the country.
On 15 November 2006, national media outlets screamed that the Delhi Police had foiled a major terror plot by nabbing a terrorist. The police alleged that Imran was a Lashkar-e-Toiba operative and 4 lakh was found on him, which they claimed was to be used to carry out terror attacks.
“Those were the dark days of my life,” recalls Imran, 29, who was acquitted by the Tis Hazari Court on 12 May of all the charges slapped by the police. “I am a free man, but who will return my five years and a promising career? No one answered that in the courtroom.”
However, the terror charges stalled his career before it could take off. “I was about to get a job at Air Deccan when the Delhi Police’s special cell picked me up from my flat in Dwarka,” he says. Hailing from Nelipora hamlet of Handwara, almost 70 km from Srinagar, Imran’s is a story of Kashmiri youth who had a modest background and doting.parents. He joined the Rajiv Gandhi Memorial College of Aeronautical Engineering in Jaipur for which his father Ghulam Rasool Kirmani, a retired government teacher, spent most of his life savings. Imran also worked part time at a Gurgaon-based aviation academy to supplement his fees.
Soon Imran became another member of a growing list of Kashmiris detained on false charges. He was paraded before the media as a terrorist arrested from a shopping mall ready to launch spectacular attacks. The charges included waging war against the nation and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act under 121, 122, 123 IPC and 120B (criminal conspiracies).
“I wasn’t arrested from a mall. The police seized me from my flat along with Rs 4 lakh my father had given me for buying a flat. I was present
THE MEDIUM-BUILT man with a long face and a little beard claims he was tortured during the initial days while the media showed no interest in his side of the story. His father and mother Sara Begum had protested his innocence constantly. They even appealed to the then President of India, APJ Abdul Kalam. The case went on for five years because of Delhi Police’s inability to produce any evidence to back its accusations.
Despite what the family members believe was “overwhelming evidence” pointing to Imran’s innocence, the wheels of justice rotated so slowly that it destroyed his much-cherished goal of working for a top airline. Along with the psychological torture, the Kirmanis had to liquidate all resources, including their house and two kanal (approximately 10,880 sq ft) of prime agricultural land to secure Imran’s release.
“During this long period, seven judges heard the case. But Justice SS Rathi was the only one who understood the case,” says the elder Kirmani, who is happy that his son is finally a free man. He says he won’t seek damages from any agency but the government should work on his son’s rehabilitation and job.
While Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah is reportedly following Imran’s case to provide rehabilitation, the National Conference’s Handwara legislator Chowdhary Muhammad Ramzan told TEHELKA that he too will help the family “if any assistance is sought”. “Imran is as good as any other citizen and deserves rehabilitation,” says the MLA.

Baba Umar is a Correspondent with Tehelka.
babaumar@tehelka.com

Saturday, 25 June 2011

The Man Who Knows Too Much

THE ACCUSED (inset) Ex Army Major Avtar SinghHe is accused of having abducted and killed lawyer Jaleel Andrabi in Srinagar in 1996. He has also been named for the murder of at least a dozen other men. He fled the country, and was back in the news after his wife reported him for domestic violence in California in February this year. A court has ordered the Ministry of External Affairs to ensure his extradition, but no action is being taken. Speaking to Open, the Major says if his extradition is actually initiated, he will never be allowed to return alive, he knows too much and he will not keep quiet. There is a photograph of Jaleel Andrabi (seen in the second photo above), surrounded by friends and family on his 36th birthday. It was taken on 29 January 1996. The camera has caught him leaning back in his armchair, laughing in a rare moment of ease. Andrabi was a prominent human rights lawyer in the Valley, allied with the JKLF. He had just come back from Geneva, where he had spoken out against the Indian government at a time when the Army and security forces were, in effect, Kashmir. Friends had told him he was on a hit list, but he had dismissed their concerns.

The same day, a vehicle had driven up to his house. Two bearded men in phirans walked up to the door and said their father had been set afire by the Army at Pulwama, that he had survived and been admitted to a hospital in Srinagar. They said their mother and sister were waiting outside, and wanted to consult him on what could be done legally. Andrabi asked them to meet him in the High Court. Just then, his brother Manzoor, who had gone to the doctor, returned. He told Andrabi that the only people waiting outside were three armed men. At this, the men left hurriedly in a taxi. The family made a note of the registration number—JKT 1988.
The next day, the same people came knocking at the door. By now, Andrabi was apprehensive. He had good reason to be. On 5 December 1992, Kashmiri Pandit and rights activist HN Wanchoo had left his house accompanied by two men who wanted him to come and reassure a mother whose son, they said, had been picked up by the security forces. A few hours later, Wanchoo was found dead, shot through the head, the upper back and the abdomen. On 22 April 1995, two unidentified men opened fire on Mian Abdul Qayoom, President of the Jammu & Kashmir Bar Association, leaving him seriously injured. They had come to him claiming to seek his help in a case.
Andrabi’s wife was the one who went to speak to the men at the door. As she was telling the men that they should come to court to meet her husband, Andrabi went up to the attic with a camera. The men saw him clicking photographs, and started gesticulating. But neighbours had gathered by now and the men had to flee. The next day, Andrabi released their pictures to the newspapers
+++
Fifteen years later, I am sitting in the heart of Srinagar, under the shade of a chinar tree, listening to his brother Arshid talk of what happened then. He bears an uncanny resemblance to his brother, an aged version of the man in the photograph. He has related this story often in the past decade. “It was very difficult in the beginning,’’ he speaks slowly, but with a certain gravity, weighing each word. He looks up, a wan smile playing on his face, “…but I have developed my defences now.’’
In the days following the two visits, Andrabi spent much of his time at the High Court, arguing a case where he had sought to ensure that people detained in the state were not taken to jails outside J&K. The state had appealed the order and it had come up before a division bench of the High Court. Andrabi had asked Arshid to accompany him to court. At lunch, Andrabi pointed to the man sitting on an adjacent table, a notorious Ikhwani (surrendered militant working with the security forces) named Sikandar. Andrabi told Arshid the man had been shadowing him for some time. He said if he could be followed to the High Court there was no way he could be safe in the state, he needed to leave for a while.
“He stayed in Delhi for over a month. He met the press, talked to a few embassies, I think he annoyed the government further,’’ says Arshid. In March, Andrabi came back to the Valley to be with his family for Eid.
On the day of Eid, 8 March, while heading home with his wife, his Maruti car was stopped by an Army contingent led by a Sikh officer. They seem to have been waiting for Andrabi. There were three vehicles parked there, a one-tonne Army truck that had ferried the 20 or so Armymen accompanying the officer, their officer’s jeep and a private vehicle. Men wrapped in red blankets, their faces barely visible, were seated inside the private vehicle.  Eyewitnesses later said they had been vetting all those stopped. Barely half an hour before Andrabi drove through, Arshid and Manzoor had taken the same route. They had been stopped. “I thought they were looking for some militant, but I was surprised at how closely they scrutinised me in particular before letting us through’’.
Andrabi was not allowed through. He was asked to get out of the car and taken into custody. His wife, who could not drive, was left behind. She waved down an autorickshaw and tried to give chase, but the vehicles were moving too fast.  The same evening, a case of abduction was filed at a nearby police station. The J&K Bar Association moved the High Court the next morning. The Army and the BSF filed replies denying Andrabi had been picked up by their men. 
On 27 March, 19 days after the abduction, a college student named Abid Hussain, a resident of Kursu Rajbagh, a locality that lies by the Jhelum, went to the banks of the river early in the morning. According to his deposition, he saw a body floating down the river. It got entangled with the lines of two boats anchored ahead and drifted towards the bank. Soon, more people gathered there and pulled the body ashore. The upper half of the torso was covered with sackcloth tied around the waist by a rope. As soon as the sackcloth was removed, most of the men there were able to identify the body—Jaleel Andrabi had lived in that neighbourhood for over a decade at one point of time. Andrabi had been shot in the head and his body bore marks of injuries that suggested he had been beaten and tortured. The post-mortem suggested he had died about two weeks before the body was found.
Arshid was among the people called to identify the body. For ten days, he tells me, they did not tell Andrabi’s children, a son and two daughters, anything, “We sent them away for ten days to an aunt’s house.’’ He falls silent. “When they came back, his son, who must have been barely six or seven, came and sat on my lap. He turned to me and asked: ‘Why was my father’s body fished out of the Jhelum?’ He had read everything that had been written about the case.’’
A passing shower has forced us to move inside. I know that after Andrabi’s death, Arshid has married his brother’s widow and raised the children. He continues to speak. I don’t see his face clearly in the dark. Only his voice, speaking of the past, carries to me: “I explained everything to him, as much as I could. Since that day, he has never asked me anything about his father, nothing at all.’’
Later in the day, I walk down to the banks of the Jhelum at Kursu Rajbagh, past the trees that line the bank. I find two dumper trucks parked beside a row of boats tethered to the bank. The boats are piled high with sand. At the bottom of each boat lies a large metal corkscrew used to scoop sand out of the riverbed. Men stagger from the boat to the truck with loads of sand.
Nasir Ahmed says he has been plying these boats for several years. Each truckload of sand brings him Rs 1,700, it sells for much more in the market. He has heard of the Andrabi case. Even fifteen years later, it is hard to find someone in Srinagar who has not heard of it.
Nasir tells me the body was found on this stretch of the river, not far from where we are standing. He seems to suggest there was nothing exceptional about what happened to Andrabi. “Ever so often, when we bring sand back to the bank, we find remains of the dead. Skulls turn up often enough, I think we found the last one in March this year. More rarely, we used to find thighbones, sometimes with flesh still attached to the bone.’’
He pauses a moment to think about what he is saying: “Mostly, they are the remains of the men who were killed between 1991 and 1996—we don’t know how many died. The Army cantonment lies just upstream and bodies used to be dumped into the river from the bridge.’’ He comes back to the present, struggling to make sense of this absurd reality: “We do not go out on the river after the evening azaan; it is the time of the djinns.”
Soon after Andrabi’s body was found, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed by the J&K Police; it did not take them long to connect Sikandar to the abduction. On 5 April 1996, just about a week after Andrabi’s body had been found, seven more bodies were found at Pampora. Among the dead was Sikandar Ganie, the Ikhwani. When the police spoke to Sikandar’s widow, Hameeda, she told them that Sikandar and his associates had been summoned by another Ikhwani, Mohammed Ashraf Khan alias Umer, to an Army camp in Rawalpora, headed by a man named Major Avtar Singh of 35 Rashtriya Rifles.
Six months later, the police were finally able to trace Umer. His statement was recorded before a magistrate and it implicated Avtar Singh in the murder of not just Jaleel Andrabi, but also Sikandar and his associates. According to Umer, in March 1996, Avtar Singh and Sikandar picked up a man dressed in a suit-and-tie and brought him to the camp. They were accompanied by “Suken, Balbir Singh, Waid, Doctor who was an Army Doctor and Mushtaq Haider etc.’’ The statement is chilling. Clearly a number of men at the Army camp were involved in the crimes Avtar Singh is charged with, including the doctor. It should have been relatively easy to find out who these men were, but none of the others has been named for the murders. It is quite likely that many of them continue to serve in the Army.
Umer goes on to state that the man in the suit argued with these men, questioning why he had been abducted and brought to the Army camp. He was beaten up and locked in a room. Shortly after, Avtar Singh came and told Umer that the man they had picked up was a famous advocate named Jaleel Andrabi, who works against the Army. The same evening, he said, he heard cries and shouts from the room where Andrabi was confined. Then there was the sound of a gunshot.
In much of the rest of the country, the idea of an Army camp brings to mind images of cantonments and barracks. In Srinagar, during those years, a camp was nothing more than a large house or two taken over by the Army. Each camp exercised jurisdiction over a few square kilometres, but in those few square kilometres the soldiers exercised complete authority.
Today, the Army has moved out of Srinagar and Rawalpora is an affluent colony in the south of the city. When we ask our way to the camp we are misdirected a few times. Houses have come up where there were fields just a decade ago and the old paths do not lead anywhere. We stop at a grocery shop, where an old man sitting behind the counter points to a road leading to the colony. 
We walk down a narrow lane, it seems narrower still because of the high boundary walls that loom on either side. The houses are large, signs of a new affluence, but the past has not completely disappeared. An old temple covered in ivy, walled in, stands at the entrance of Gali no. 3, which leads to the local mosque. Gali no. 4 is a right turn from the lane, and then takes a sharp left, parallel to the lane. As we turn, the two houses facing us are what once made up the Army camp where Andrabi was killed. One of the houses seems recently refurbished, there is work underway on the other. We decide not to trouble the new owners; there are some things they don’t need to know.
Umer, according to the police files, used to run a small shop—perhaps no different from the shop where we were given directions to the camp—supplying bread to the camp. This got him in trouble with one group of militants. He turned to another group, only to then start work for the police. Several such switches later, he became part of the very camp to which he once used to supply bread.
For the first few days after Andrabi was shot, Umer said, the Ikhwanis did not turn up at the camp. A worried Avtar Singh sent him along with Suken and Balbir Singh in search of Sikandar. They located him and told him to report to the camp. The next day, Sikandar came to the camp accompanied by three men and a driver. They were told to leave their weapons at the gate on the pretext that the commanding officer was expected on a visit. They sat down to drink with Avtar Singh, and after an hour or so, were asked to come into the dining room. Umer, who claimed to be standing on the verandah, saw Avtar Singh, the Army Doctor and the other men named earlier overpower Sikandar and his colleagues and tie them up with ropes. They then shut the dining room door. The next day Sikandar and his colleagues were found dead.
On 10 April 1997, the SIT set up by the J&K police filed its report before the court, naming Avtar Singh. A colonel representing the Army told the court that Major Avtar Singh was acting in his personal capacity. He further added that Avtar Singh had served only for a year in Kashmir and had been ‘disembodied’ from service. He said he originally belonged to the Territorial Army 103 posted at Ludhiana. The court directed the Union government to impound the Major’s passport or prevent him from being issued one. The court also asked for the service files of the Major within four weeks, so that final orders could be passed. Before the next hearing, the two judges were transferred.
A year later, in 1998, even as the J&K police was still claiming that the Major could not be traced, I easily managed what the J&K police apparently could not. I interviewed him in Ludhiana at the Territorial Army barracks while working for The Indian Express. I do not have my notes anymore and I do not remember the details. The interview was never printed. All I remember is that he was clean-shaven at the time and he told me he was being made a scapegoat.
In 2000, the SIT finally told the court what should have been verified much earlier—that Avtar Singh was still in Ludhiana. Soon after, despite the court orders, Avtar Singh was able to obtain a passport and leave the country for Canada, and then Selma, California, where he runs a transport service, driving his own truck. In February this year, his wife reported him for an incident of domestic violence. When the Selma police checked his records, they found there was an Interpol Red Corner notice against his name.
It is not difficult to locate his Selma number, and he is the one who answers the telephone. He begins by telling me what he told me 13 years ago in Ludhiana—that he was being made a scapegoat.
“Am I stupid to make sure I murder people in the presence of this man named Umer? He very conveniently seems to have witnessed everything I did. Would I trust a man like him, a surrendered militant, one who had worked for the police and everybody else at some point or the other?”
But Umer’s confession is corroborated by other evidence. He mentions the death of Ghulam Qadir, a resident of Batamaloo in Srinagar. When we drive there, the local butcher directs us to Ghulam Qadir’s house. Only Qadir’s daughter is at home. She sends a young boy along to show us the way to the shop, Benison Estate and Construction, where her brothers handle the business they have inherited from their father.
On the night of 18 February 1996, they say three armed men came to the house and asked Ghulam Qadir to accompany them. One of them was Major Avtar Singh, the other Umer. They are sure of the identities of the men because they were later able to identify them.  They never saw their father again.
They say the motive was extortion. Their father owned three shops at Lalbagh, everyone in the locality knew he was well off. Someone else in the neighbourhood had also been picked up and released after Rs 2 lakh was paid. They paid money as well, but their father never returned. Years of searching have not led them anywhere, their father’s body was never found, they don’t know what happened to him. But Umer’s testimony is clear: “Major Avtar Singh, Sukan, Balbir Singh, Waid and Doctor’’ eliminated him “…and I do not know where his body was dumped’’.
Perhaps most damaging to Avtar Singh’s claim is an old photograph lying with the family. It is also part of the police records. It shows a group of Armymen in uniform sitting in the snow, posing with their SLRs. At the centre of the picture are Major Avtar Singh and Umer.
Avtar Singh is on much stronger ground, though, when he claims, “I am being made a scapegoat. Since I was originally from the Territorial Army, it is easy to disown me and deny the culpability of other organisations.’’ Clearly, he did not act alone, but no other Army personnel has been charged with the murder. Neither is there a motive that ties Avtar Singh to Andrabi; none of the cases Andrabi had taken up related directly to Avtar Singh. In his confessional statement, Umer has added that Avtar Singh told him that he had killed Andrabi because “other officers had entrusted him with the job’’.
The police’s own investigation connects the taxi (registration no. JKT 1988) and the photographs taken by Andrabi to another group of surrendered militants, who operated under the name of the Tiger group of the Jawabrara camp. They took directions from a Major in military intelligence (MI), who went by the name of Ashok Clifton, alias Bulbul, who has often been confused with Avtar Singh due to the complicated nature of the case. Clearly, then, there was a senior MI operative involved in the intimidation of Andrabi just a month before his death.
Avtar Singh asks, “How come this Major Clifton from the MI suddenly appears in the SIT report and then is not mentioned again?’’
In March this year, Justice Bilal Nazki, one of the judges who ensured an SIT was set up to investigate Andrabi’s murder, finally spoke about the case to the media. Nazki, who retired as Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, said: “In 1997, when I was hearing the case, we had set up a Special Investigation Team of the J&K Police to probe the murder.
Major Avtar Singh should have faced trial. Soon after I passed orders in the case, I was transferred to Hyderabad. The High Court did not take any interest afterwards.”
On 30 May this year, a Srinagar court directed the authorities, including the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), “Since a lot of time has already got wasted without any fruitful results... it is impressed upon the authorities concerned to expedite the matter and make every endeavour to extradite the accused at the earliest, so that [the] majesty of [the] rule of law is not dented. This order should be forwarded to [the] foreign secretary, Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi…” According to a status report filed by IGP Crime, Kashmir, relevant documents have already been submitted to the foreign secretary, Ministry of External Affairs (vide number Pros-07/2011, 4 April 2011) but there has been no response so far. When Open contacted the MEA, we were promised a reply within the day, but four days later, at the time of going to press, we had not received a response.
If Major Avtar Singh was just a renegade acting on his own, the need to shift a High Court judge seems strange, as does this doggedness to ensure that he does not return to India. Even his escape from India seems to have been made possible with the complicity of the authorities. How otherwise was he issued a passport despite court orders?
One possibility is that a trial of the Major will seriously undermine arguments favouring sweeping powers for the Army in Kashmir and other insurgency areas. But even that does not quite explain the extent of the cover-up. In California, Avtar Singh remains sure he will not be extradited to India. “The law here is on my side. The case against me will not stand in court here.’’ But, I ask him, what if the extradition does go through. He does not hesitate: “There is no question of my being taken to India alive, they will kill me.’’ Who will, I ask him. “The agencies, RAW, military intelligence, it is all the same.’’ He has also just told me about constant threats from the Al Qaida and I’m inclined to not take him seriously, but he goes on: “If the extradition does go through, I will open my mouth, I will not keep quiet.’’
There can be no better reason to ensure he does return to India and stands trial in court.
(C) http://www.openthemagazine.com
Author : Hartosh Singh Bal

  

Sunday, 19 June 2011

Least We Forget| Remembering Javed Ahmad Malla.


1.      Name: Javed Ahmad Malla 
2.      Age: 19
3.   Educational qualifications: 10th (Due to extreme poverty, he was forced to discontinue his studies)
4.      Profession: He was working in a bag manufacturing unit in Khonmoh in order to make his both ends meet and to support his parents
5.      Economic background / status: Lower class family, poor
6.      Date of killing: June 20, 2010

7.      Location of killing: Waniyar Noorbagh locality, Shahr-e-Khas (downtown) Srinagar

8.      Whether or not he was throwing stones when killed: No
9.      Details of killing: Javed Ahmad, a relative of Rafiq Ahmad Bangroo was killed near Noorbagh locality, Shahr-e-Khas (downtown) Srinagar when paramilitary forces fired on the funeral procession of 25 year old Rafiq Ahmad Bangroo, who was beaten to death by the CRPF personnel at Safakadal. Javed Ahmad Malla died on the spot. (6)
10.  Eyewitness accounts: According to the eyewitness, Javed Ahmad Malla was one among the people who were carrying the funeral procession of his cousin Rafiq Ahmad Bangroo towards the martyr’s graveyard for funeral. During this procession, people raised slogans to which the troopers and the police striked back with gunshots and he was shot with a bullet in the neck. He was taken to SMHS hospital where he died on the same day. According to the eyewitness the security forces / police used violence without any provocation. (1)

11.  Family members account: Javed Ahmad according to his relatives and friends had a very shy nature and he was a very dutiful and submissive son to his parents. It was for his dutiful nature that he left his studies and started working so that he could support his parents at a very little age.
On Saturday, 19th June Javed came home after a couple of weeks. javed’s cousin Fayaz Ahmad Malla said, He had planned to visit injured Bangroo at Soura hospital but after the news of death of his cousin came in, he got restless and left home early in the morning to participate in Bangroo’s Nimaz-e-Jinazah (funeral prayers),”. Javed was killed during the Nimaz-e-jinazah when Indian troops opened fire upon hundreds of angry protestors carrying the body of Rafiq Ahmad Bangroo. (7)
Fayaz Ahmad Malla also said, “Javed would never indulge in stone-pelting or any such activity. He put his academic career at stake for the sake of his parents and started working in a garment factory at Khanmoh alongwith his two brothers Manzoor Ahmad and Mehraj-ud-din. He used to stay there and would visit his home once a month,”
Adding to this, another cousin Noor Muhammad, the owner of the factory where Javed was into bag-making says that he will forever regret his decision to let Javed go home. He said, “This is what you call fate. Had I known that Javed was going to never return, the case would have been different. He was an intelligent boy who within no time became the in-charge of my firm,” (2)

12.  Other details (mourning/protests/burial):
As per the reports of kashmirlife (3), Javed Ahmad Malla was killed when CRPF/Police used unprovocative force on people who were attending to the funeral procession of Rafiq Ahmad. According to the reports, more than 100 persons were injured in police action on the funeral processions of both Rafiq Ahmad and Javed Ahmad Malla. An eyewitness, Manzoor Ahmad, a resident of downtown Srinagar, said, “Police usually justifies its action by claiming to intervene in a situation getting out of hand. But people are not convinced. “Here if an only son of a person is killed, police will first of all thrash him and humiliate him without caring that a tragedy has already stuck him,” said Manzoor Ahmad, a resident of downtown Srinagar”. Police is accused of viewing every gathering in Kashmir through security prism. “If people gather for any funeral ceremony they will simply swoop down on it by terming them anti-national,” said Mehrajudin, a businessman. “Even Section 144 gives relaxation for funeral ceremonies but the police and CRPF are law unto themselves and they don’t care.” (8)

13.  Police/government account:
As per the government and police reports, Javed Ahmad was killed on June 20, last when he was a part of an “unlawful assembly” when he was hit by bullets. The government maintains that the opening of the fire was necessary to prevent the mob from entering the CRPF camp and restoring to arson. “The miscreants dismantled the sentry post of CRPF and attempted to set ablaze a mobile bunker using kerosene oil. The miscreants were asked to desist from the activity but they became furious and began to enter the CRPF camp and police post premises.” (9)

According to the report, tear smoke was used to disperse the miscreants. However, some miscreants forced their entry into the sentry post and attempted to snatch a rifle from the sentry on duty. The sentry fired some rounds to bring the situation under control during which some civilians, CRPF personnel and policemen were injured.
“Later one of the inured namely Javaid Ahmad Malla succumbed to his injuries.” (4)
1
16.  Case developments since the killing: describing the death of Javed Ahmad Malla as “suicidal” the Chief Minister directed the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir, Naseema Lanker, to enquire into the killings and submit a report within one week. The report is yet to be made public. (5)
(
(Complied By Aamir Wani)
18.  Links and references to sources:



)

             


  

Monday, 16 May 2011

Interview With Syed Ali Shah Geelani By Yoginder Sikand


Syed Ali Shah Geelani is a veteran Kashmiri politician. Presently, he heads the Tehrik-e Hurriyat-e Jammu Kashmir. He talks about the Kashmir conflict and its possible solution in this exclusive interview with Yoginder Sikand.


Q: In your writings, and in those of other similar Islamist ideologues, the Kashmir conflict is often described as a war between Islam and ‘disbelief’. Do you really think it is so? Is it not a political struggle or a nationalist struggle, actually?



Ali Geelani : The Kashmir dispute is a fall-out of the Partition of India. The Muslim-majority parts of British India became Pakistan, and the Hindu-majority regions became the Dominion of India. There were, at that time, some 575 princely states in India under indirect British rule. Lord Mountbatten gave them the choice of joining either India or Pakistan, and instructed that their choice must be guided by the religious composition of their populace as well as by the borders they might share with either India or Pakistan, as the case might be. 

On this basis, almost all the princely states opted for either India or Pakistan. There were, however, three exceptions to this. Hyderabad, a Hindu-majority state with a Muslim ruler, opted for independence, but India argued against this on the grounds that the state had a Hindu majority, and so ordered the Police Action to incorporate the state into the Indian Dominion. Junagadh, another Hindu-majority state with a Muslim ruler, opted for Pakistan, but India over-ruled this decision, again on account of the state’s Hindu majority, and annexed it. If India had adopted the same principle in the case of Jammu and Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state with a Hindu ruler, there would have been no conflict over Kashmir. After all, more than 85% of the population of the state at that time were Muslims; the major rivers in the state flowed into Pakistan; the state shared a border of over 750 kilometres with Pakistan; the only motorable road connecting Kashmir with the outside world throughout the year passed from Srinagar to Rawalpindi; and the majority of the people of the state had cultural and historical ties with the people of Pakistan.However, over-ruling these factors, which would have made Jammu and Kashmir a natural part of Pakistan, in October 1947 the Indian Army entered the state in the guise of flushing out the Pathan tribesmen, who had crossed into Kashmir in the wake of large-scale killings of Muslims in Rajouri and Poonch. Using this incursion an excuse, Hari Singh, the ruler of Kashmir, engineered the intrusion of Indian forces. The British scholar Alistair Lamb says that the so-called Instrument of Accession that Haris Singh is said to have signed to join India temporarily was itself fraudulent. He claims that Hari Singh did not even sign it.

Thereafter, India itself took the issue of Kashmir to the United Nations. The UN passed some eighteen resolutions related to Kashmir, recognizing the status of the state as disputed and calling for a resolution of the conflict based on the will of the people of the state, which the first Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, himself also publicly promised. Now, all that the people of Jammu and Kashmir are saying is that India should live up to this promise that it made of holding a plebiscite in accordance with the UN resolutions. So, this is the basic issue.



Q: So, aren’t you here saying that the conflict is essentially political, and not specifically religious?


Ali Geelani : For a Muslim, no action is permissible which is against Islam. How can we say that the sacrifices that the Muslims of Kashmir make, the tortures that they suffer, and the martyrdom that they meet have nothing to do with Islam, and that they won’t be rewarded by God for this? In this sense, it is a religious issue also. Islam teaches that Muslims must follow the guidance of Islam in every action of theirs—not just in prayers but also in matters such as war and peace, trade, international relations and so on, because Islam is a complete way of life. If a true Muslim participates in any struggle, it is for the sake of Islam. So, how can you say that the Kashmir conflict has nothing to do with religion?


Q: This might be true in theory, but surely many Kashmiris who are involved in the movement for separation from India might be motivated by other factors, including for economic and political reasons, or also due to a commitment to Kashmiri nationalism, as distinct from Islam?


Ali Geelani : I agree that there may be various reasons why different people may participate in the movement. Yes, there can be many who do not adopt the guidance of Islam in this regard. They might champion secular democracy and irreligiousness. Their sacrifices might be motivated by nationalism or ethnicity, rather than Islam. They might have no problem with the system of governance in India, their opposition to Indian rule being simply because of the brutalities of Indian occupation. Of course, one cannot say that all Kashmiri Muslims think alike. But I am speaking from the point of view of a practicing Muslim, who accepts Islam as a complete way of life. For such self-conscious Kashmiri Muslims, it is undoubtedly a religious issue and their sacrifices are for the sake of the faith.


Q: But do you really see Indian Hindus and Muslims as two separate ‘nations’? After all, they share so much in common.


Ali Geelani: They are totally separate nations. There is no doubt at all about this. Muslims believe in just one God, but Hindus believe in crores of gods.


Q: But the Prophet Muhammad, in his treaty with the Jews and other non-Muslims of Medina, described the denizens of Medina as members of one nation. The leader of the Jamiat ul-Ulema-i Hind and a leading Deobandi scholar, Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, even wrote a book to argue against the League’s ‘two nation’ theory, stressing a composite Indian nationalism that embraced all the people of India. So, how can the Muslims and Hindus of one country be considered separate ‘nations’, even by Islamic standards?


Ali Geelani: Islam lays down that in an Islamic system (nizam) all non-Muslims, including even atheists, will get equality, justice, security of life and property and freedom of faith. Maulana Madani’s arguments were critiqued by Maulana Maududi.


Q: In your prison memoirs, Rudad-e Qafas, you write that ‘It is as difficult for a Muslim to live in a non-Muslim society as it is for a fish to live in a desert’. But how can this be so? After all, the pioneers of Islam in India and in Kashmir itself, mainly Sufi saints, lived and preached in a society in which Muslims were a very small minority.


Ali Geelani: I meant to say this in a particular sense. Islam, as I said, is a complete way of life. No other path is acceptable to God. So, in the absence of an Islamic polity, it is difficult for Muslims to lead their lives entirely in accordance with the rules of Islam, which apply to social affairs as much as they do to personal affairs. For instance, Muslims in Kashmir under Indian rule live in a system where alcohol, interest and immorality are rife, so how can we lead our lives completely in accordance with Islam? Of course, Muslim minorities are Muslims, too, but their duty must be to work to establish an Islamic dispensation in the lands where they live so that they can lead their lives fully in accordance with Islam and its laws. Missionary work to spread Islam is as much of a duty as is praying and giving alms to the poor.


Now, as for your question about those Sufis who lived and worked in societies where Muslims were in a minority—they may have been pious people, but we take as our only model the Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H).


Q: You mentioned about preaching Islam being a principal duty of all Muslims. But, surely, for this you need a climate of peace, not of active hostility, as in Kashmir today?


Ali Geelani: Absolutely. I agree with you entirely. No one can deny this. We need to have good relations with people of other communities. Only then can we communicate the message of Islam to them. But if one side continues to oppress the other and heap injustices and says that this should be considered as ‘peace’, how can it be accepted? If, for instance, Narendra Modi says that what happened with the Muslims in Gujarat represents peace, how can anyone accept it? If India stations lakhs of troops in Kashmir and says this is for establishing peace, how can it be, because these troops themselves are disturbing the peace?


Q: In the wake of the attacks of 11 September, 2001, how do you see the impact of American pressure on Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, to change their position on Islamist movements?


Ali Geelani: The events of September 2001 have caused most Muslim states to change their policies and to toe America’s line even more closely. You can see this happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The only Muslim country that refuses to cave under American pressure is Iran.


Q: And now America is seeking an excuse to attack Iran, is it not?


Ali Geelani : Yes. America is trying to stoke Shia-Sunni rivalries in order to undermine Iran. It is trying all other such weapons, dividing the Muslims on the basis of sect, nationality, race and ethnicity against each other so as to weaken them. And the leaders of most Muslim countries are now playing the role of agents of the USA, be it in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Palestine or as is the case with the Saudi monarchs. See what’s happening in Waziristan, the Frontier Province and Baluchistan, in Pakistan. A climate is being deliberately created in those parts of Pakistan to justify American attacks and bombings in the name of flushing out militants.


Q: If Pakistan is now so pro-American, acting against its own people, and if it is not an authentic ‘Islamic state’, then why have you been advocating Kashmir’s union with it?


Ali Geelani : As I said earlier, the Muslim League claimed that Pakistan was won in the name of Islam, but it did not give its cadre the necessary training to establish an Islamic state there. Because of this, the influence of the Army and the country’s Westernised leadership, Pakistan failed to become an Islamic state. But it was meant to become such a state, which is something that we want. So, if the people of Jammu and Kashmir were given the right to decide between India and Pakistan, the majority, I think, would prefer the former.


I admit that there are weaknesses in Pakistan, but these can be addressed. India has a secular system, which we can under no condition accept. Because of the oppression that we have been suffering under Indian rule for the last sixty years, how can we opt for India? In just a few weeks, in late 1947, some five lakh Muslims were killed by Dogra forces and Hindu chauvinists in Jammu. In the last seventeen years, over one lakh Kashmiri Muslims, mainly innocent civilians, have been killed. So many localities have been burned down, women raped and men rendered missing. After such brutal experiences, only a blind person would opt in favour of India.


Q: Many Kashmiri Muslims would rather be independent than join India or Pakistan. Do you agree?


Ali Geelani: The UN resolutions provide for only two options: joining India or Pakistan, and if this rule is followed then the majority would, I think, opt for Pakistan. However, if the three parties to the dispute—Pakistan, India and the people of Jammu and Kashmir—come to a consensus on an independent Jammu and Kashmir, then, as I have repeatedly said, we will accept that formula also.


Q: In some of your writings you have argued against Kashmir being an independent state, even claiming that this is an Indian ‘ploy’. Can you elaborate?


Ali Geelani : This is true. It is an Indian ploy, because India does not want to see Pakistan strengthened, which it would be if Jammu and Kashmir joins Pakistan. The slogan of Azadi is aimed at weakening Pakistan. Independence would result in a territory that would have been a natural part of Pakistan being taken away from it. But, then, compared to staying with India, independence is a lesser evil.


Q: Many Kashmiris, seeing the current political and economic troubles in Pakistan, might say that they would prefer to be independent.


Ali Geelani: If we get independence, we will accept it.


Q: What if most people of Jammu and Kashmir wish to live in a secular or democratic set-up, and not a Taliban-style ‘Islamic’ state?


Ali Geelani: We don’t want to bring Taliban-type Islam, but the real Islam of the Quran and the Practice (Sunnah) of the Prophet(P.B.U.H) .


Q: But the Taliban argued that their state was in accordance with the Quran and the Sunnah.


Ali Geelani: To claim something is different from acting on that claim. For instance, while Islam makes it a duty for every Muslim male and female to acquire education, as soon as the Taliban came to power they banned girls’ education. What they should have done, instead, was to set up separate schools for girls. So, like this, there are many issues on which we can differ. The Islamic state that we would like to establish in Jammu and Kashmir would be one based on the understanding that all of humanity are children of the same primal parents, Adam and Eve. They will all be treated equally and justly. There shall be no discrimination based on religion. After all, the Prophet once remarked that all creatures are of the family of God and that the best is he who treats members of God’s family—which obviously includes non-Muslims, too—in the best way.


Q: You advocate Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan, but today minority nationalities in Pakistan, such as the Baluchis and the Sindhis, suffering under Punjabi domination, are struggling for independence. Might not the same thing happen to the Kashmiris if the state were to join Pakistan?


Ali Geelani: We want to join Pakistan, not be absorbed into it. We would have internal autonomy.


Q: But, surely, despite Pakistan’s claims, the part of Jammu and Kashmir under its control—‘Azad Kashmir’—lacks real autonomy?


Ali Geelani: Yes, Azad Kashmir cannot be said to be really autonomous since there, too, everything happens according to the wishes and directions of the Federal Government. But we would make sure that our autonomy be written into the Constitution.


Q: Do you see any significant changes in Pakistan’s policies vis-à-vis Kashmir in recent years, perhaps under American pressure?


Ali Geelani: Yes, considerable changes can be noticed. Earlier, Pakistan used to insist on the right to self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Musharraf was the first to change this, arguing for a solution outside that of the UN resolutions, an out-of-the-box solution. This constituted the first deviation in Pakistan’s Kashmir policy. Then, Musharraf began talking of seven zones in Jammu and Kashmir, soft borders and his four-point formula, which is nothing but a means to preserve the status quo.


Q: How do you respond to media allegations that the Kashmiri movement for self-determination is ‘anti-Hindu’?


Ali Geelani: How can our struggle be called ‘anti-Hindu’? It is a struggle for certain principles. In Hindu mythology, when the Kauravas and the Pandavas, cousins of each other, were arrayed against each other on the battlefield, Arjun turned to Krishanji Maharaj, and told him that he could not bear to fight his own brothers. Why, he asked him, was he asking him to fight them? He wanted to refuse to fight. But, then, Krishanji Maharaj said, ‘Arjun, this is a battle for certain principles. In this, do not consider the fact that those who are opposed to you are your relatives’.


We Kashmiris, too, are engaging in such a battle 
for certain principles with the Indian Government, for occupying us against our will and for not acting on its promise to let us decide our own political future. It is not a war against Hindus or the people of India. It is not a communal conflict. In fact, there are many Indians who support our stand on the right to self-determination


Q: Then why is it that the Indian media, and large sections of the Western media, too, present the movement as ‘Islamic extremism’ or ‘terrorism’?


Ali Geelani : The Indian media is bound to support India’s military occupation. How can you expect it to support our cause? I’ve seen so many massacres by the Indian Army here, but often the media describes them as ‘encounters’ with ‘militants’. You know how the agents of the Indian Army engineered the massacre of so many innocent Sikhs in Chhatisinghpora and falsely attributed this to ‘militants’, in order to convey the misleading message to the then American President, Bill Clinton, at that time on a visit to India, that our struggle is a ‘communal’ one, and not a freedom movement. I can cite so many more such cases to prove this point.


Q: But, if that is so, why is it that you and people like you have not condemned killings by militants in the same way as you condemn similar crimes by the Indian Army?


Ali Geelani: Wherever such incidents have happened, we have condemned them, irrespective of the religion of the victims. The Quran clearly states that enmity with a people should not make one stray from the path of justice, because justice is closer to piety.


Q: If Jammu and Kashmir becomes independent, how do you envisage its relations with India and Pakistan?


Ali Geelani: It should have brotherly relations with both countries.


Q: Some radical groups active in Kashmir argue that all Hindus are ‘enemies’ of Islam. What do you feel?


Ali Geelani: No, this is erroneous. There should be no enmity or discrimination with anyone simply because of his religion, caste, race, colour or country. We are permitted to fight only those individuals who fight us or place hurdles in the path of our faith. With others we should have good relations, and that applies to our relations with ordinary Hindus as well. So, when some people argue that as a community the Hindus are ‘enemies of Islam’, it is wrong. It is not an Islamic way of thinking.


Q: Certain militant groups active in Kashmir say that they will not stop their war with India until India itself is ‘absorbed’ into Pakistan and the Pakistani flag flies atop Delhi’s Red Fort. What is your opinion?


Ali Geelani: This is emotional talk and should not be paid attention to. We don’t agree with this argument. Our fight with India is only to the extent that India has taken away our right to self-determination. Once we win that right we will have no problem with India. In fact, if by exercising this right the majority of the people of Jammu and Kashmir say that they want to be with India, we will also accept that.


Q: But don’t you feel certain radical groups active in Kashmir who preach hatred against Hindus and call for India’s ‘absorption’ into Pakistan are actually defaming the religion whose cause they claim to champion?


Ali Geelani: Islam has been given a bad name more by Muslims themselves and less by Hindus. Islam has been damaged less by open ‘disbelief’ (kufr) than by hidden hypocrisy (munafiqat), by people who claim to be Muslims but are really not so in practice. 


Q: So,  you agree that these groups who condemn all Hindus as ‘enemies’ are actually misinterpreting Islam?would


Ali Geelani: We cannot take responsibility for what others say. You can ask these people yourself.


Q: What message do you have for the people of India?


Ali Geelani: I will only say that India should honour its promise to the people of Jammu and Kashmir to let them decide their own political future. Honouring one’s promise is a major principle of the Hindu religion. Raja Dasharath, honouring the promise he made to his wife Kaikeyi, gave his throne to his son Bharat and ordered Ram Chandraji to go into the forest in exile. Simply in order to keep his promise he sent his elder son to fourteen years in the forest and gave the throne to Bharat instead. Bharat was a man of character, and so he placed Ram Chandraji’s sandals on the throne, believing that his elder brother deserved to rule. So, the Hindu religion teaches that one should live up to one’s promises, and if India were to act on the advice of the Hindu scriptures in this regard on the issue of Kashmir the conflict will easily be solved.