Militants: No hope of Kashmir solution

The head of the United Jihad Council (UJC), Syed Salahuddin, does not nurse any major hopes of a diplomatic or negotiated settlement of the Kashmir issue and says New Delhi has closed the doors of any peace process by refusing to accept that Kashmir is a dispute.

"If Kashmir is not a dispute, as Indian Home Minister LK Advani says, who can silence the guns of Mujahideen? We will continue to fight for the Kashmir cause till freedom because we don't believe in peace for peace's sake. We believe in peace for the sake of freedom," he said.

In a rare one on one interview with Gulf News, Salahuddin, who heads the main militant organisation, the Hizbul Mujahideen, and is also supreme commander of the 14-party Jihad Council fighting Indian forces, spoke at length about the recent situation in Kashmir.

He felt that the Indian ceasefire was a farce, denied charges of Pakistan's involvement in the Kashmiri freedom struggle and said: "Even if Pakistan does not extend political or moral support to us, we will fight."

He also denied reports that the Hizb had reduced attacks against the Indian forces and insisted that the ceasefire, which New Delhi extended recently, had never existed nor it was there right now.

"India wants to give some comfort to its army, and is using cease-fire as a pretext."

"What for example is the justification of increased casualties suffered by Indian forces if there really is a ceasefire, especially if the Hizb has shown restraint.

"In fact, we are doing the most damage but India has chosen to blame these activities only on Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. It wants to fool the international community by claiming that not all but only a small faction of the militants is against peace and that the rest of the Kashmiris are pro-peace," the Hizb chief said.

Salahuddin, however, confirmed when pressed that at least some differences did exist between the All-Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) leadership and between the Hurriyat and the Mujahideen commanders on the issue of whether or not to respond to the Indian "drama" of cease-fire.

"We are one but the only difference is that we (Mujahideen) talk in the military lexicon while they (Hurriyat leaders) speak in political and diplomatic language. The objective is the same. Again, one group (in the Hurriyat) feels that India is using ceasefire only to gain time, while the other group says that diplomacy demands that the Indian offer should be responded to."

Asked which group of the Hurriyat he agreed with, Salahuddin answered that he personally supported the one led by Syed Ali Geelani who thought that India was using the ceasefire only as a pretext. But the Hizb chief insisted that the difference was too small to be attended to.

However, he said if at any stage any Hurriyat leader seemed to be deviating from the Kashmir cause, "that leader will have to go instantly, even if it is Salahuddin himself."