Kashmir Affairs - Security & Conflict Analysis of Kashmir

Ram Jethmalani
Former Law Minister, India

Murtaza Shibli
3 August 2008

Ram Jethmalani is India’s most famous criminal lawyer who has taken unpopular cases like defending Indira Gandhi’s killers to Abdur Rahman Geelani, a Kashmiri professor at Delhi University who was sentenced to death for his alleged role in the Indian Parliament attack in 2004 that nearly brought India and Pakistan to a nuclear war. He is also former Law Minister of India and heads unofficial Kashmir Committee that has extensive contacts with the pro-freedom Kashmiri leaders in Srinagar and tried to start a dialogue between New Delhi and the Hurriyat leaders. Ram Jethmalani is close to Hindu fundamentalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Hindu militant group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) with whose support he was elected to Rajya Sabha or upper house of the Indian Parliament.

What do you think about the current situation in Kashmir?
Except for the disturbances that started recently, the situation in Kashmir is not that bad and I believe that the Kashmiris are tired of violence, terrorism and want peace. Today there is almost a passionate desire that things should become normal. Fortunately this feeling is shared by people from both the sides; India and Pakistan. So Kashmir is not such a dangerous place and given a little effort we should reach a permanent solution.

But recently Kashmiris have come out in hundreds of thousands demonstrating against the Indian government. It seems things have gone back to what they were in 1990?
What is happening today in Kashmir is totally irrational. A small tract of land has been reserved for people who want to go on a religious mission and build a temple. This is not transfer or destruction of land, but unfortunately it is easy for some mischief-mongers to whip up feelings of this kind and create a problem and I have no doubt that people sitting in the legislature itself who are responsible for it.

Could you identify them?
I would not like to identify them but any intelligent person can guess. Otherwise there is no reason why a few plots of land reserved for peaceful religious reasons should result in so much violence.

How do you see the Hurriyat Conference’s role in this?
They did not contest the elections and officially they are not in the legislature but some of their sympathisers undoubtedly are. However, the principal Hurriyat leaders, and I am not talking about Syed Ali Geelani here, had arrived at a settlement with the Kashmir Committee in which it was agreed that extreme positions on both sides had to be abandoned. The extreme positions are on one side independence and on the other side abandonment of Article 370 that brings down the autonomy of the Kashmir state to the level of other Indian states. Both of these are abandoned, the solution is then a discussion on autonomy and a transfer of a few subjects from the central list to the state list.

At one time when Farooq Abdullah was in power, the assembly had passed a resolution about autonomy. This was in response to the then Prime Minister Narsimha Rao’s statement that if Kashmiris want autonomy, the sky is the limit. Once this resolution was passed, the Indian government was happy because the elected representatives had begun to find a resolution within the Indian constitution. Unfortunately the Indian government got bad advice and I regret to say that the person in power at that time was L.K. Advani. And when I told them to start this dialogue on autonomy immediately to arrive at a solution, they said no. Today, if BJP returns to power, I hope they will seriously talk to the elected representatives of the state and discuss how much autonomy they want. On the other hand, talking about Pakistan, PoK [Pakistan-occupied Kashmir] also needs autonomy very badly. India should pledge that it would give the same amount of autonomy to Kashmiris on this side as those in PoK and even maybe more. It should be agreed that there be equal autonomy on both sides so people can justly say we are in charge of our own affairs. And neither Pakistan nor India can exploit their resources like a colonial power.

In 2002, when you were trying to get Hurriyat leaders involved in the elections, why could they not contest the elections?
There was a fear among Hurriyat leaders that the election results might destroy their claim to be great leaders. So they shied away from the elections and it may be that there are people who pull strings. It may also be that they are in consultation with people across the border and the decision was made that it would be no use in getting involved in elections at the moment. They would wait until the final resolution would come.

In 2002 you had persuaded some of them to contest elections.
I had certainly persuaded some people but they were not people belonging to the Hurriyat. I had meetings with some terrorists about 40-50 in Srinagar and believe me they said guns were out and they were going to contest elections. A new party came into existence of 11 groups which coalesced together and actually fought the elections. So therefore I have always said don’t teach the terrorists mere counter violence. There are some terrorist who are willing to understand and talk, and go back on the plea which they had adopted.

But at that time you blamed Farooq Abdullah for scuttling the whole affair.
Farooq at that time advised the Indian government not to talk with the Hurriyat. It was perhaps his impression that it would weaken his position.

The situation this time was different with Mirwaiz Umar Farooq refusing to call for election boycott while Syed Ali Geelani asked for the boycott. But then suddenly Amarnath Yatra glued the two parties together.
It seems to me nothing was done by the government which caused this kind of response. Of course everything where the passions of people have been involved, whether they have been rightly or wrongly inflamed is a setback. But we have suffered so many setbacks before and I hope we can survive this one.

So far do you think this peace process is failing or would fail?
This peace process has reached its destination, it will never fail so long as you keep its spirit and will alive. Every time you talk of peace, you are adding to the movement of the peace process.

There has been talk of Al-Qaeda in Kashmir. Do you see any credible threat or connection with Al-Qaeda in Kashmir?
After the Russians went out of Afghanistan, the Al-Qaeda fighters who were created jointly by America and Pakistan had to be shifted somewhere. They had also got used to the reward for the work they were doing and their training had to be used. So they were distributed to various places in the world, some to Chechnya, Palestine and some returned to Kashmir which had its own attractions.

So you think there is a connection there?
Oh there is a connection there, no question about it. It is unfortunate that we succumbed to the fear of terrorism and rigged elections. That might have added to the strength of terrorists. Genuinely some young person may have thought that there was no hope of democracy in the future of Kashmir.

How far do you think the Kashmir Committee is being taken seriously by the Indian government?
They have taken it so seriously that they have been trying to undermine it. We have faced more resistance from the Indian government than anybody else.

What has been the response of the Pakistan government?
Very good, that is one of the bright rays of light in this darkness. Somehow the people in Pakistan want to settle this problem. I have found this to be the attitude of General Musharraf.

The same can’t be said of the Indian side?
Certainly not, I have said that you have almost missed the bus.

Is it because the Indian leadership seems to be in thrall of newly gained confidence or perhaps trapped in their own glory?
No, they think that loosening their hold on Kashmir might not go well with the Indian electorate and it might cost them votes.

The members of the Kashmir Committee headed by yourself has a diverse membership, even a Kashmiri Pandit is a member but there is not a single Kashmiri Muslim in it.
That is absolutely true but on other hand this is supposed to be a Kashmir Committee of Indians who are trying to talk to the people of Kashmir as well as Pakistan.

That means you accept a Kashmiri Pandit as an Indian rather than him being Kashmiri.
We had a Kashmir Pandit because he speaks the Kashmiri language so he makes our communication with the Hurriyat leaders easy, he had the relevant telephone numbers for all the leaders for meetings and so it was convenient. We also found that he had intimate knowledge of internal Kashmiri politics. I have no reservations about having a Kashmiri Muslim in the committee and in the future we might seriously consider this.

You earlier said about Pakistan’s positive attitude in solving the Kashmir problem. What are the reasons behind this?
I am a firm believer that this change in attitude in Pakistan has been brought about by America. After 9/11 the Indian Prime Minister immediately said we are partners in the war against terror. So did Musharraf, whether by pressure or conviction, but both are on the same side. That is what led to this peace process and potential to find a final solution.

Going back to the Kashmir Committee, has it ever taken any active position on human right violations in Kashmir and of Kashmiri Muslims Delhi and rest of India?
Kashmir Committee has always taken view that any violation in Kashmir would hurt the Kashmiris and cause a setback in the peace process.

But there have been so many incidents where Kashmiri students, businessmen and tourists have been picked up, thrown in jail and branded as terrorists in mainland India and nobody talks about it.
If any Kashmiri Muslim was into that kind of trouble in any part of India, they are bound to have turned up to me. I have not had such complaints.

I can give you many specific examples.
Well you know of my defence of Professor Abdur Rahman Geelani who was sentenced to death for the attack on the Indian Parliament. I defended him despite many problems and against lots of odds. I can assure you if any such case was brought to my notice, Kashmir Committee will fight it.

There are lots of allegations of Indian Muslims being involved in terrorism by India, how credible do you see this?
I don’t think so. There could be a few who may succumb to temptation to the offers or perhaps out of conviction, but according to me it is a miniscule minority and I don’t think we are in a serious danger to even talk about it.

Do you think there can be any positive connection that can be built between the Kashmiris and Indian Muslims?
I believe this relationship exists although it has not been talked about. There is no harm in expressively making an effort in bringing this relationship about.

Do you think the Indian media has been helpful in the public perception of Kashmir or have they dramatised the situation?
I think they have ignored Kashmir; they could have done much better.

In Pakistan, who do think was in a better position to resolve the Kashmir issue, President Musharraf or the new government?
I personally have respect for Musharraf’s attitude to the peace process. I only hope that new elected government will not do anything to delete it.

Where do you place the army in Pakistan in the whole situation?
If the government is honest, I don’t think the army will be able to play in this, it is not possible in the present scenario to stage another take over. So the new government should not be fearful of this.

But, what happened to Musharraf’s proposal of demilitarization?
Demilitarization will take place as soon as terrorism is stopped, we have no business to keep army in Kashmir. Of course some army has to remain in the Indo-Pak border, this is a normal process.

I get worried when Indian politicians portray the extent of what you call terrorism in Kashmir. After all there is no more than five to six hundred militants in the whole of the Kashmir Valley. One can’t justify the disproportionate number of army.
In spite of the so called large number of armed forces there, terrorism still operates. It shows that the army are inadequate there or that the terrorists are worth their weight than the army.

I would rather see it as the political alternatives offered as inadequate in dealing with the problem rather than the army.
I don’t think your case in necessarily wrong, or that it is necessary right.