Ghulam Hasan Majrooh is the General Secretary of the Ittihadul Muslimeen, a largely
Shia political party, supporting the right to Kashmir self-determination, whose Chief Patron is the senior Kashmiri leader, Maulana Abbas Ansari. In this interview with Yoginder Sikand, he talks
about his work and about media perceptions and depictions of the Kashmir conflict.
Q: What do you feel about media reporting about the Kashmir issue?
A: With a few exceptions, neither the Indian nor the Western media depicts the issue in a proper light or
represents the voices of the majority of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The dominant Western media, for instance, has its own interests. They do not have
sympathy for the subjugated Kashmiris. America is interested principally in expanding its markets and promoting its commercial and strategic
interests, and since India is such a huge potential market for the West, the Western media would not like to oppose the Indian stance on Kashmir. So, increasingly, our legitimate struggle for self-determination
is being wrongly branded in the media as 'terrorism', in the Indian and Western media.
Q: You mention that your media cell reports instances of human rights violations in Kashmir by agencies of the state. But what about similar violations by militants?
are very clear that all forms of terrorism, no matter who perpetrates it, is thoroughly condemnable. The killing of innocents,
no matter what their religion, is a heinous crime, something that Islam roundly denounces. In the past, when some innocent
Hindus in our state have been killed we have issued statements condemning this.
Q: In the independent Jammu and Kashmir that you seek, what status would the religious minorities, such as Sikhs, Buddhists, Dalits and Hindus, enjoy?
Religious minorities would have equal rights. They are also part and parcel of our land, our culture and our history. We are
not against the Hindus, unlike what the media portrays. To cite a recent instance, just three weeks ago, senior Hurriyat leaders
went to Kheer Bhavani, the most important Pandit shrine in Kashmir, where they met with Pandits who had come to celebrate a festival and wished them on the occasion. I have some Pandit
neighbours and we go to each others' homes and enjoy very cordial relations. The Kashmiri Pandits are part of our Kashmiri
culture, and they must live here, because Kashmir is also
their homeland. So, we want them to return and they have also the right to. The issue of Kashmir is not simply a Muslim one. It is an issue of the people of Jammu and Kashmir as a whole.
Q: But do you think that as long as violence continues the Pandits will return?
A: We certainly want them back.
However, we cannot give them any guarantee of safety, just as we Kahsmiri Muslims have no such guarantee in the presence of
some seven hundred thousand Indian troops in our state.
Q: Do you think a peaceful solution of the Kashmir dispute is indeed possible?
A: This is precisely what we want. Particularly after 9/11, dialogue, not war, is the
only way out. War cannot be a solution as that will lead to total destruction, now that both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers. India must recognize that Kashmir is a disputed issue. If the Indian and Pakistani leadership want to save the region
from destruction they must solve the Kashmir dispute
in accordance with the aspirations of the people of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, because otherwise nuclear war is a real possibility. Unfortunately,
however, although we have had three rounds of talks with Indian leaders, there has been no real positive response from their
side. I think Musharraf's four-point formula is worth considering as a starting point for a gradual and peaceful solution
of the conflict. The Hurriyat Conference supports this. President Musharraf has talked about demilitarization and joint management
of Jammu and
Q: But what sort of solution do you envisage?
A: The solution has to satisfy all three parties to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute—Pakistan, India and the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir. India must live up to its promise of allowing the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine their own political future. India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru,
made such a public promise and even took the Kashmir issue to the United Nations, where again he vowed that India would live
up to this promise.
Q: But how does one satisfy the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, given the tremendous diversity in the state, in terms of religion,
caste, sect and ethnicity?
A: True, this is a very difficult task. But such a solution must necessarily be arrived at through
dialogue. This is very much possible if all parties are sincere. Any solution of the issue must be acceptable to all the people
of the state—not just the Kashmiris, but also to people living in Jammu, Ladakh, Gilgit, Baltistan and other parts of
the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Q: Some militant groups involved in the armed conflict in Kashmir characterize the conflict as essentially religious, rather than political. They see it as a war between Islam and
'disbelief' (kufr). What do you say about this way of understanding the conflict?
A: This characterization of the conflict is wrong. The roots of the conflict go back to 1947, when the Hindu majority
parts of India became the Indian Dominion and the Muslim-majority
areas became Pakistan. So, it is a political issue. Or, should I say, going beyond that, it is a human issue, a humanitarian issue, one
related to the basic human right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine their own political future.
Q: Do you think religious extremists in both India and Pakistan,
Muslim as well as Hindu, would ever allow for a peaceful resolution
of the Kashmir issue?
A: Some such extremist elements in both
countries, of course, do not want such a solution, but then many ordinary political leaders, too, feel the same way. There
are also some agencies in both countries that are very active in Kashmir and who want to see the continuation of the conflict, because their own vested interests are linked to this.
Q: The Indian media generally projects political groups such as yours as 'anti-Indian' and 'anti-Hindu'. How do
you respond to this charge?
A: This is wholly wrong. We have no hatred for ordinary Hindus or Indians. We have no quarrel with them. We are only
opposed to the Indian state for denying us our inherent right to political self-determination. We are all for peace, but with
freedom and justice.
Q: What are your views on recent developments in Pakistan that have led to increasing instability there—for
instance, the recent massacre at the Lal Masjid in Islamabad?
A: I don't think it is right that some people hold others
hostage in a mosque and say they will establish an Islamic state thereby. How can that be?
Q: But what do you feel about the way Musharraf handled the Lal Masjid issue?
A: Pakistan is an independent country, and so if the government
feels that its security is under threat it has the right to respond. It's their own issue.
Q: And what about happenings elsewhere in the Muslim world, such as Iraq? The Ittiehadul Muslimeen, of which you are General
Secretary, is largely Shia in composition. How do you recent events in Pakistan and Iraq? What do these mean for the Shias and for Shia-Sunni relations there
as well as in Kashmir?
A: In Pakistan there have been some attacks on Shias, but the
majority of the Pakistani people are opposed to this sort of communal violence. The United States, however, is bent on fuelling Shia-Sunni conflicts,
to divide and rule. This they are trying in Iraq, for instance. However, the Iraqi Shia religious leadership has been opposing this
effort. Ayatollah Seistani, the most popular Iraqi Shia leader, has consistently appealed to the Shias not to fall prey to
American machinations and to seek to maintain brotherly relations with the country's Sunnis.
Q: How do you respond to charges in the media that seek to link Islam with terrorism? In particular, what do you
feel about the way in which the Kashmir conflict
is increasingly being presented in the media as what is labeled as 'Islamic terrorism', rather than as a national liberation
A: Islam is being wrongly interpreted as being synonymous with terrorism, while actually it teaches quite the opposite.
It stands for peace and justice for all. The unrest in much of the Muslim world owes principally to widespread oppressive
conditions that prevail there. The media is making things immensely worse through negative portrayals of Islam and Muslims.
Any Muslim who sports a beard is immediately dubbed as a 'fundamentalist'. And in our case, our struggle for freedom is wrongly
branded as 'Islamic extremism' in order to delegitimise it.
At the global level, media portrayals of Muslims must also
be seen in the context of the interests of the Zionist and right-wing Christian lobbies, which are so influential today in
America. They will not spare any opportunity to defame
Islam, and this is reflected in the media, too. They have their own missionary agenda. They want to weaken Islam and Muslims,
so that they can enjoy untrammeled global hegemony.
In Kashmir, too, these forces are playing themselves out. The Indian media wrongly projects our struggle as an instance of 'religious
extremism'. It has sought to present it as a communal conflict, which is not the case. In order to thus brand it and delegitimise
it in the eyes of the Indian people, and globally as well, the first thing that India did was to drive the Pandits out of Kashmir, in order to project the view that our demand was anti-Hindu, which
was not the case. If you want to destroy a people, you need to destroy their culture, and this is precisely what has happened
in Kashmir. The forced migration of the Pandits, engineered
by the then governor Jagmohan, was a major effort to destroy our Kashmiri culture and ethos which binds the Muslims and Pandits
of Kashmir together.