A meeting with Yasin Malik at his home in Srinagar gave me the chance to talk to the JKLF supremo about a variety of issues. Being one of the founding members of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), which was at the forefront of militancy in 1989, gives Malik an important place in the current movement in Kashmir. Currently, the JKLF is a key member of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), which itself is embroiled in internal squabbles. Malik still lives in the same old home that he has lived in since childhood, never feeling the need to move to a house in a safer environment. While the house was freshly painted, it still did reflect the simple living that Malik professes to follow. When I entered his room, he was lying down. He acknowledged my presence and tried to get up, but then decided to keep lying down. He asked me to make myself comfortable, and asked me to begin the conversation.

I briefly asked him about his ideology and his reasons for joining (or starting) the movement. He asked me to read one of the articles published on him in the Times of India. He asked one of his sisters to get the article, which had been framed and hung on the wall. He gave it to me, and then left the room for sometime. I read the article, which basically had a profile of his activities and his life. The incident that had sparked his entry into the “freedom movement” talked of how an Army atrocity in front of his own eyes when he was all of 14 years convinced him that they [Kashmiris] were not free. Living under the repressive rule of the Army was suffocating and ultimately led to his taking up the arms, and now all that he dreamt of was freedom. Living in the same mohalla made him feel at home, because in the mohalla, every child was everyone’s child. After having read the article, I looked around the room, which surprisingly, had a picture of Mona Lisa on the wall, a book shelf and lots of newspapers, both English and Urdu, strewn around.

On the movement and its future prospects

Based on the reasons that he had ascribed for his participation in the movement in the article, I asked him why, when so many other Indian states also had the same economic and political problems, did Kashmiris want Azadi instead of pushing for wide-ranging reforms. Did it merely boil down to the alleged atrocities committed by the security forces? He replied saying that there could not be a comparison between Kashmir and the other Indian States. “We’ve always been a sovereign and independent State”. He cited historical facts about Kashmir, which showed that Kashmir had always been separate and distinct from the other parts of India. “And not for nothing did our leader Sheikh Abdullah languish in jail for so long”. The Sheikh had also been asking for the liberation of Kashmir but was jailed as a result of his advocacy of a separate Kashmir.

What about the 1975 Indira-Abdullah Accord then? Yes, Malik conceded, Abdullah signed the accord in 1975 and there was a lull in political activism after that, as is expected after any accord or deal. But, the people rose up in arms later after they realized that “the Accord was a sell-out”. The Sheikh betrayed us in the end. Malik therefore continued to assert, that people had always wanted independence and it was not just after 1975 that Kashmiris have asked for it. Interestingly, the grave of the Sher-i-Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah, is heavily protected by security forces as there is a serious threat of damage being caused to his grave, as he is widely criticized for having sold out in the end and betrayed the people. But Malik insists that even before the Accord, a non-violent political movement had been going on which was either crushed, ignored, or often even went unnoticed.

Does he actually think that it is realistic to believe that either India or Pakistan will give up their claims and allow an independent Kashmir to exist? Brushing aside the question concerning viability of an independent Kashmir nation, he said that India has really been non-committal about solving this issue. It [India] always maintained that it will not talk to Pakistan before the violence which is now being termed as “cross-border terrorism” ended. Coming to the table to talk is very important to look at the prospects of a viable solution to the problem, whether Kashmir will become independent or not. Thus, the militants decided to stop the violence, in order to force India to talk, as per its promises to talk after the cessation of violence. But even now, the Indian government refuses to start talking. If they continue to stall like this, the violence will erupt again and cause extensive destruction. The Indian Government has to realize this. Coming to the table is essential as “only once you come to the table, can you put forward your respective agendas and see what common ground you can arrive at”.

On the need to have Kashmiris as party to the talks

Malik strongly believes that for viable talks, Kashmiris have to be made a party to the talks. “Without that, no solution will be acceptable to the Kashmiri people. You cannot thrust a solution on me nor can I thrust a solution on you. Everyone has to come to the table, with their own agendas. Then let us see whether we can agree on something or not. The Indian Government knows their case is very weak, that is why they are not willing to come to the table. We’re just coming to the table to talk, not to impose a solution. If the Indian Government doesn’t find anything acceptable, they need not accept”.

What is his response to the Government’s view that the Hurriyat needs to prove that they are the real representatives of the people of Kashmir, especially in view of the widely held view that the Hurriyat is fast declining as a political entity? Malik retorts, “They ask us to fight in elections, but that would mean that we are Indians; which we cannot accept”. According to him, the India government merely wants them to fight as Indians to become the Indian representatives of the Kashmiri people, something which is in direct contradiction of our belief that we are not Indians.

The Indian Government, due to its domestic compulsions, is simply trying to stall the talks till the next elections. They want to show they’ve put an end to militancy in Kashmir and that is why tourists are pouring in. This is not the case though as shown by the recent attacks on the Army camps in Akhnoor. It shows that the militants still have the capability. The can attack the pilgrims in the Valley also if they want.

On the prevailing conditions in the Valley and the international pressure

The militants are lying low and not doing anything to disrupt security in the Valley, especially in and around Srinagar, where most of the Amarnath yatris are embarking on their journey to Amarnath from. The army and the Indian government is claiming that they have been successful in curbing militancy, while Malik continues to argue that the militants are simply not acting out of their discretion.

So what is stopping the militants? Is it international pressure? Malik claims it is “not international pressure, but international persuasion”. Pressure is if they openly come out and say that if you should not do this, we’ll punish you by doing this and this. However, all this has been discreet, not in the open. And there is no threat of punishment if we don’t follow. Thus, it is simply international persuasion, not international pressure.”

After September 11, there is a growing international belief, according to Malik, that violence is not the way to achieve to the ends and therefore, violence in any form is being condemned. And India has very cleverly used this development to take a stance that they will not talk until the violence ends. To counter this stance, the militants have gone to the extent of stopping the violence. “Now is the best opportunity for India to come and talk”. Else it would be too late, and violence will erupt again.

Why is India not willing to come ahead for talks then? Does India not want to solve the issue? According to Malik, it is just internal domestic politics. They are trying to continue like this till the elections. [One of his aides: “Even the Mufti Government is trying to do the same. Mufti also wants this to continue like this for one or two years more so that he can brag about how violence had come down during his reign. But they are not letting even democratic struggles to continue peacefully. Look at Yasin Sahab. He was arrested for carrying out peaceful, non-violent, democratic activities and put in Tihar jail for 5 days. He has just come back from there and look at his condition. He has not been able to move properly since then, and just keeps lying here. He cannot get up from his bed also that easily”].

On the internal Hurriyat’s squabbles

The Hurriyat leadership recently came out openly saying that it is willing to talk about autonomy as the first step towards more comprehensive talks in the future about the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. But Malik disagrees, “even we are part of the Hurriyat. No one has said that. We are just saying that we are ready for talks and that if any talks are held, the Kashmiris have to be a party to them, else they will not be fruitful”. India has always been saying that talks and violence cannot go together. Now that the violence has stopped, the next step naturally should be talks. But India is not moving. What can we do then? This is the best time to initiate talks.”

Is the Hurriyat going to split? The rumored split of the Hurriyat in the media circles is just that, according to Malik. He feels confident that they will be able to solve what he calls are merely “internal differences”. While it is receiving extensive media coverage, the Hurriyat leaders want to just talk it out and solve their differences among themselves. The Hurriyat remains the sole representatives of the Kashmiri people, and will continue to be a powerful force, Malik predicts.

On the relevance of violence to the Kashmir struggle now

International persuasion cannot stop the militants for long. Now if the Indian government does not talk, obviously violence will erupt again. But does he think that violence is going to make the Indian government listen? “It’s not about listening”, Malik says,” it’s not at all about making them listen. This is about the ground reality”. The ground reality is that if talks are not held soon, violence will erupt. “The Kashmiris have never wanted violence, it was thrust upon them”. For so many years before violence erupted here in 1989, as mentioned earlier also, there was a non-violent political movement going on. But the Indian government didn’t pay too much attention to the grievances of the Kashmiri people.

Doesn’t he feel, then, that if violence stops again and talks begin, the Indian government will again go into its slumber mood and begin ignoring the issue again? Malik is confident that they [Indians] cannot ignore or sideline the issue for long. “The martyrs’ graveyards here in the Valley cannot just be forgotten”, he insists.  They haven’t laid their lives down for nothing; their sacrifices and efforts can’t go to waste. And he concludes “And so this issue cannot be sidelined. Whether now or a few years later, they will have to accede to our demands”.