On October 27, 2010, an Indian website published an interview with Syed Ali Shah Geelani, a pro-Pakistan secessionist leader in India's Jammu & Kashmir. Geelani, who is the chairman of the hardline faction of secessionist Kashmiri organizations' alliance All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC-G), has re-emerged as the guide of Kashmiri youth who have been protesting since June against human rights violations by Indian security forces in Kashmir.
Geelani currently heads the Tehreek-e-Hurriyat-e-Jammu Kashmir (Movement for the Freedom of Jammu & Kashmir), a new organization that has been seeking to shape the direction of Kashmiri movement in favor of Pakistan. Geelani himself advocates jihad and integration of Kashmir into Pakistan.
In the interview published by newageislam.com, Geelani also argues that the issue of Jammu & Kashmir is a religious issue for all Muslims, stating: "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."
Following are excerpts from the interview:[1]
"How Can We Say that the Sacrifices that the Muslims of Kashmir Make… the Martyrdom that They Meet has Nothing to Do with Islam?"
Q: "In your writings… 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"?
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 [the Governor-General of India after independence] 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 & 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 [in Pakistan]; 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 & 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 & 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…"
Q: "So, aren't you here saying that the conflict is essentially political, and not specifically religious?"
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?"
"I am Speaking from the Point of View of a Practicing Muslim; For Such Self-Conscious Kashmiri Muslims, It is Undoubtedly a Religious Issue"
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."
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: "Maulana Maududi, the founder of the Jamaat-e Islami, who is a major source of inspiration for you, opposed the creation of Pakistan. So, then, why is that that you have consistently been advocating Kashmir's union with Pakistan?"
Geelani: "You are wrong here. Maulana Maududi was not opposed to the creation of Pakistan and to the 'two nation' theory.[2] What he was opposed to was the practice of the Muslim League leaders, who were leading the movement for Pakistan. He told them that while they talked of the 'two-nation' theory and Islam, they were not serious about establishing an Islamic state in Pakistan. They were not preparing the activists of the League for an Islamic state. Maulana Maududi wanted Pakistan to be an Islamic state, and this was the ground for his opposition to the Muslim League…"
Q: "But do you really see Indian Hindus and Muslims as two separate 'nations'? After all, they share so much in common."
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 [one crore=10 million] of gods."
Q: "But 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?"
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."
"Islam… is a Complete Way of Life; So, in the Absence of an Islamic Polity, It is Difficult for Muslims to Lead Their Lives Entirely in Accordance with… Islam"
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."
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."
Q: "But, surely, no one is forced to drink alcohol, deal in interest, or act immorally in Kashmir?"
Geelani: "True, but these things automatically spread since they are allowed by the present un-Islamic system. So, that is why you see the degeneration of our culture and values happening on such a large scale…"
"[After 9/11] The Only Muslim Country That Refuses to Cave Under American Pressure is Iran"
Q: "You, following other Islamist ideologues, have consistently been advocating what you call an 'Islamic state,' seeing this as an indispensable Islamic duty. To your mind, which is the best functioning 'Islamic state' in the world today?"
Geelani: "The world-wide Muslim community Ummah is today in such a sorry state that there is no Islamic state anywhere in the real sense. Saudi Arabia is described as an Islamic state, but it is run by a monarchy, and monarchy has no sanction in Islam.
"If Muslim countries, including those that claim to be 'Islamic,' were truly Islamic states they would never have been enslaved to America, as is the case today. They all support America's policies and adopt its dictates. They are completely, on all accounts, dependent on America. They cannot even defend themselves. They have to rely on America and Europe to do this. They keep their money in American banks. We say that they should use their wealth to empower themselves and get out of America's clutches and convert themselves into genuine Islamic states."
Q: "In the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, how do you see the impact of American pressure on Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, to change their position on Islamist movements?"
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?"
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 U.S., 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."
"[If] the People of Jammu & Kashmir Were Given the Right to Decide Between Pakistan and India, the Majority… would Prefer the Former"
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?"
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 Westernized 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 & Kashmir were given the right to decide between Pakistan and India, 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 [500,000] Muslims were killed by Dogra forces and Hindu chauvinists in Jammu. In the last seventeen years, over one lakh [100,000] 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 favor of India."
Q: "Many Kashmiri Muslims would rather be independent than join India or Pakistan. Do you agree?"
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 & Kashmir – come to a consensus on an independent Jammu & Kashmir, then, as I have repeatedly said, we will accept that formula also…"
Q: "Many Kashmiris, seeing the current political and economic troubles in Pakistan, might say that they would prefer to be independent."
Geelani: "If we get independence, we will accept it."
Q: "What if most people of Jammu & Kashmir wish to live in a secular or democratic set-up, and not a Taliban-style 'Islamic' state?"
Geelani: "We don't want to bring Taliban-type Islam, but the real Islam of the Quran and the Practice (Sunnah) of the Prophet…"
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?"
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 & Kashmir under its control –'Azad Kashmir' – lacks real autonomy?"
Geelani: "Yes, Azad Kashmir [i.e. Pakistani Kashmir] cannot be said to be really autonomous since there, too, everything happens according to the wishes and directions of the federal government [of Pakistan]. But we would make sure that our autonomy be written into the Constitution…"
"[If] the Majority of the People of Jammu & Kashmir Say That They Want to Be With India, We Will Also Accept That"
Q: "If Jammu & Kashmir becomes independent, how do you envisage its relations with India and Pakistan?"
Geelani: "It should have brotherly relations with both countries."
Q: "Some radical [Islamic] groups active in Kashmir argue that all Hindus are 'enemies' of Islam. What do you feel?"
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?"
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 & Kashmir say that they want to be with India, we will also accept that…"
Endnotes:
[2] The term 'Two-nation theory' means that Muslims and Hindus could not live in India together, a point that led to partition of India and creation of the Islamic nation of Pakistan.
