Tripartite dialogue only way forward: Fazal

Vajpayee and Musharraf wanted to resolve Kashmir issue amicably

Fazal Haq Qureshi is the founder of People’s Political Front and a known separatist leader in Kashmir. A former militant chief and co-founders of the Al Fatah, Kashmir’s first insurgent group, Qureshi insists on resolving Kashmir conflict for lasting peace in south Asia. He was chosen by Hizbul Mujahideen as its key interlocutor during the dialogue with New Delhi in 2000. He firmly believes in peaceful and amicable resolution of Kashmir dispute with the involvement of all stakeholders Kashmir, India and Pakistan. Qureshi in his first ever detailed interview (after 2009 attack on him) with Rising Kashmir’s Daanish Bin Nabi talks at length about the peace process from 2000 to 2009, his meeting with Pakistan’s former general Pervez Musharraf, former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s era, role of Kashmiri leadership and more. Excerpts:

·         Militancy almost became monopoly

·         Solution does not lie in militancy

·         Isolation is not a solution to Kashmir problem

·         Formation of Tehreek-e-Hurriyat was a conspiracy to sabotage the movement and also a conspiracy to divide people

·         Geelani is responsible for disunity in Hurriyat

·         Decision about ceasefire was decided in Kashmir with the consent of Syed Salahudin

·         Kashmiri leadership’s approach towards dialogue was inappropriate

·         There were no secret talks with New Delhi in 2009

·         We will never accept any solution of Kashmir within Indian constitution

·         Present BJP government not sincere as it was during Vajpayee’s era

·         How is your health now?

With Allah’s grace I am fine. But I cannot walk without support. I am dependent in a way.

·         You are co-founder of Al-Fatah. How different is militancy now?

Yes there is a lot of difference in militancy now-a-days. When we started the armed struggle, it was a new phenomenon then. Hardly, anyone knew about it. But today each and everyone know what militancy is.

·         Do you think sentiment towards militancy is stronger compared to 90s?

Militancy was stronger during our era because there were only few people who used to take care and sustain militant groups. But with the passage of time there was so much mess in militancy ranks that even we got confused who was with whom? Rifts within parties became common. After this, militancy almost became monopoly. The stronger among the lot used to call the shots.

·         Are Kashmiris distancing themselves from militancy?

I think people now know how militancy has helped or created problems for them. People, in my view, also know now that the solution does not lie in militancy. The solution only lies in the friendship of India and Pakistan but with the consent of people of Kashmir. The solution does not lie exclusively with India or exclusively with Pakistan nor does the solution lie in being isolation. We have to take whole south Asia on board for any solution.

·         What do you mean by involving whole south Asia?

I mean involving stakeholders like Kashmir, Pakistan and India.

·         You always want to see a united Hurriyat and have made numerous efforts to unite them?

I firmly believe that if there is any political solution to Kashmir problem it is never in isolation. We have to take all like-minded people on board and talk to them. Soon, after I was released from jail, I went to see Mirwaiz and proposed unity. Within two days he agreed. We also met everybody across the board to build common consensus and tried to find a solution to this issue. After all the years of turmoil it was a kind of out of box solution. A lot of risk was involved. After meeting Mirwaiz, within two day he took unification initiative in his own hands. Since then efforts for uniting Hurriyat are on. All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) was one body including Geelani Sahab. But one fine morning he separated from the body of APHC and subsequently from Jamaat as well and formed his own group Tehreek-e-Hurriyat. We resented his moves as it seemed a conspiracy to sabotage the movement and also a conspiracy to divide the people. When APHC was already there then there was no fun of having a second front. Geelani saying that he is the sole representative of people is not right at all. That time we resented this move tooth and nail. Separating from each other was never good for the movement. We still believe that if we have to take this movement forward we have to come on a common platform. One cannot alone take this freedom movement forward. And this applies to everyone, be it Syed Ali Geelani or Mirwaiz Umar Farooq. We have to shun individual approach to take this movement to its logical conclusion.

·         So, what in your view hinders unification?

In my view the only hindrance in unification of Hurriyat is the ‘I, me and myself’ approach. When an individual thinks in such a manner he cannot think in a broader perspective.

·         Are you referring to anyone?

Syed Ali Geelani.

·         Is Geelani the hindrance in Hurriyat unity?

Yes, it’s a known fact that Geelani is responsible for disunity because it’s he who left APHC. There could have been a difference of opinion or differences with the leadership of Mirwaiz Umar but it in no way means that you leave your parent organization.

·         There was a ceasefire in 2000 and peace process but it (ceasefire) did not last long.  Why?

Firstly, I pray to Allah to bless Majeed Dar. I had a good relation with him. He was like a brother. He was a Jamaat man and subsequently he joined as Hizb-ul-Mujahidin as its second-in-command after Syed Salahudin. He was a sincere man indeed. He was not full of himself. He always talked of taking everyone on board. All of sudden he came back to Kashmir from Pakistan. He contacted everyone in Kashmir including us. But I warned him over phone that his comeback was a Himalayan blunder and that one fine morning he will be killed for sure. He discussed the situation with every Hizb commander of Kashmir. After discussing with the like-minded people he decided about the ceasefire pact. The decision about the ceasefire was decided in Kashmir only but with the consent of Syed Salahudin. When ceasefire was put to force our first meeting took place at Cheshma Shahi guest house. This first meeting was attended by Kamal Pande then Indian Home Secretary, Commander Masood, Commander Mirchal, Musadiq Adil and me. We did not allow Majeed Dar to attend this meeting because we wanted him as a reserve force. The whole situation was tricky. By the time we reached Cheshma Shahi the press had come to know about this meeting. We clearly told Pandey that any solution without the consent and involvement of Pakistan is not acceptable to us; he also agreed with this view. And this meeting went well from every quarter. When we left the place Indian agencies followed us. During those days there used to be a tourist hotel in Gagribal area of Srinagar. We went straight to that hotel and once we entered it, on television screen news flashed that Syed Salahuddin has put forth certain conditions for the dialogue and ceasefire. Till this point there was no condition set for the dialogue or ceasefire. This is how ceasefire came crumbling down because India was never going to accept the conditions put forth by Salahudin.

·         Why did Salahuddin set the conditions?

It was the pressure from Jamaat, other commanders of Hizb and United Jihad Council on Salahuddin. He changed his stance about the peace process and ceasefire. It was under compulsion he changed his stance.

·         What were the conditions set by Salahuddin?

One of the conditions was that India must accept Kashmir as a dispute. And likewise there were other conditions also.

·         Does it mean that Pakistan government and its agencies were also on board for the ceasefire?

I don’t know about such a level but yes Syed Salahuddin was on board.

·         Tell us about the Vaijpayee’s years about Kashmir?

During those years we had a plus point. BJP government that time was serious for taking dialogue process to its logical conclusion. Both Vajpayee and Advani wanted to resolve the issue amicably. We were all upbeat about the dialogue process but then general elections spoiled it again. When Vajpayee lost and was out of scene everything stopped then and there.

·         How do you see Musharaff’s approach towards peace process?

Right from day one our group had decided to remain and peruse with dialogue process. But Geelani Sahab had his own understanding of things and adopted different approach towards certain issues. I have personally talked with General Musharraf about Kashmir issue at length. He was very sincere about resolving Kashmir issue. General Sahab said there are many options in resolving the Kashmir conflict but the best way is to resolve it through negotiation. He clearly stated “As Army Chief of Pakistan and President of Pakistan, I am telling you that neither Hurriyat can drag India out of Kashmir nor you people can defeat her on your own.” He further said to defeat India we need a strategy and here our strategy should be based on negotiations not battlefield. “So, I am suggesting you whatever your demands are, I will fulfill them all one by one but you have to choose negotiating table rather than battlefield.” He said the same thing to every Kashmir leader. Everyone agreed apart from Geelani. There were feelings of animosity between Musharaff and Yasin Malik observed in one of the meetings. Yasin came late by half an hour which Musharraf didn’t like. We all had gone together to meet him but by coming late to the meeting, Yasin tried to show that he should also be considered as a respected leader. He only did it for publicity and tried to show that he is also someone. Because Yasin was with us so we requested Musharaff to wait for Yasin. Here again Musharraf proved his mettle as President of Pakistan, he waited for half an hour and when Yasin came then only the meeting started. He could have started earlier but he waited for Yasin, this shows the vision of Musharraf and credit must go to him.

·         Did dialogue fail due to Kashmiri leadership?

We cannot say dialogue failed because of Kashmiri leadership but the approach of our leadership was not appropriate. Neither side reacted to such things but Musharraf gave some hints to Kashmiri leadership that such approach was not going to take us anywhere.

·         Did you have secret talks with New Delhi in 2009?

Let me clear this here. There were no secret talks with New Delhi in 2009. Whatever in the dialogue was taking place in 2009 it was open and nothing was under carpet. We had picked threads from Vajpayee’s and Musharraf’s era. There was no secret, everything was open. There were no secret meetings or words given by any party. I again repeat everything was open.

·         From 2000 to 2009, the dialogue process was referred as Quiet diplomacy or Track II diplomacy. Do you really think India was serious in resolving the Kashmir issue?

Dr. Manmohan Singh once said to us that if you want to address the Kashmir problem then you don’t have to localize it. He in clear words said that it’s not only an issue between Kashmir and India but whole south Asia is involved in it. He also stated that whether you live in India, Pakistan or in Kashmir – as far as resolving the issue is concerned you are at liberty to say or demand anything from us but through dialogue not through the barrel of gun. And his last words to Kashmiri leadership were India, Pakistan and Kashmir has to live together. We have to find conducive atmosphere where we all can live amicably. I think this shows the sincerity of previous governments of India in resolving the Kashmir issue.

·         Indian government is ready to resolve the issue but within the ambit of its constitution. Are you ready to accept any deal under Indian constitution?

Never. We will never accept any solution of Kashmir within her constitution. The meetings we had with Indian leadership was in the purview of south Asia and not India. We talked with them with south Asia in the backdrop. Our main motive was to involve everyone for any solution on Kashmir.

·         You were always on forefront whenever there were any parleys between India, Pakistan or Kashmiri leadership. Why you keep on taking risk?

I firmly believe that there is no other option than dialogue in resolving the Kashmir issue. We have to go for dialogue and take risk to convey the message to the people. Let me assure you that the only way forward is dialogue and nothing else. There are no other means of solving this problem. But the dialogue should be tripartite dialogue.

·         What happened on the night of December 5, 2009?

For the whole day I was busy with routine work. I had developed prostate during those days. I went to mosque for magrib nimaz (evening prayers). After finishing prayer I always used to sit in the mosque for extra supplications but on that fateful day I left the mosque early due to prostate problem. After leaving the mosque and having reached almost near the main entrance gate (Qureshi’s house) I remember everything but what happened after that I am totally blank. I cannot even say that I was attacked because I really don’t know what happened. When I regained consciousness, I remember I was in hospital but it was almost after a gap of 10 to 15 days. What happened during these 15 days I have absolutely no idea.

·         Do you have any idea who attacked you and why?

I don’t know who and why but according to some media reports it was Al-Manzurin group who attacked me.

·         Have you retired from political life now?

I have clearly stated it to my party men that I am not even able to go to bathroom on my own how can I be with the party. But they never understand it and always want me to be with the political affairs in one way or the other. Now I have stopped telling them anything. In a way I have retired but they don’t let me retire.

·         How do you see the engagement between India and Pakistan today?

See, engagement is very important, but I don’t see present BJP government is sincere as it was during Vajpayee era. He (Vajpayee) truly was a statesman. There has to be sincere efforts from present BJP government to resolve Kashmir issue. Kashmir is an issue and India has to accept it. If India shows adamant behavior, do you think even in this condition I will give up my fight against India? Only way forward is the dialogue and India has to show flexibility in every possible manner.