Shabir Ahmad Shah The latest Kashmir peace initiative by the Vajpayee government would have been a non-starter but for Shabir Ahmad Shah, 48. While the rest of the freedom seekers in the Valley ignored the initiative, Shah sent a delegation to Delhi in response to a letter from K.C. Pant, the chief negotiator named by the Centre. "Vajpayee holds out a ray of hope," says Shah, who prefers to be known as a JK leader-not a Kashmir leader or even a J&K leader. "We believe it is Jammu Kashmir," he says. "Why have an 'and' when it can be removed?"Shah was in class 8 when he first went to jail for political activity. Since then hHe has been in and out of jail-after matriculation, during his undergraduate days in Anantnag and many times afterwards. When he was released in 1994, amidst talks of an understanding with New Delhi, he had spent 22 years in jail in Punjab, Rajasthan, Delhi and Jammu. The people of Kashmir saw him as their own Nelson Mandela.
Amnesty International hailed him as a 'prisoner of conscience' and the All-Party Hurriyat Conference nominated him on its executive. But he left the Hurriyat very soon, as there were no takers for his conviction that a freedom struggle cannot be led by a forum of politicians, but only by a single party representing all the people.
On his own, and without a party, Shabir continued meeting leaders and opinion-makers, Indian and foreign, trying to push his line: a solution to the issue without disturbing the state's multi-cultural and multi-communal character. On May 25, 1998, he formed the Jammu Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party, the realisation of what he wanted the APHC to be converted into: a single, representative political party that will work for a solution to their problem.

Why did you respond to the talks offer when other leaders in the Valley did not?
The Government of India initiated a ceasefire unilaterally. Though it was not implemented on the ground during the first three months, the appointment of K.C. Pant as the chief negotiator to hold unconditional talks gives me hope that they are serious.
I convened a gathering of opinion-makers from all the three regions on April 28 to explore what we should do. A few were opposed to the idea, but others and a huge pile of letters I received made me go ahead.
Then we received this letter from Pant. It was vague on some scores, so we sought clarifications. We sent senior leaders to Delhi with a letter raising our doubts. Rejecting the Delhi invitation outright would send the international community and the Indian people a wrong signal. So we sent a serious reply to what we hope is a serious offer. The response will show how serious the Government of India is.

What solution are you looking for?
Our party is in favour of restoring the state-comprising Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh-to the position on August 13, 1947. But we are a democratic freedom party. So if the people of the state, India, and Pakistan agree on some other option, we will go along with them. We are willing to accept whatever is acceptable to all three parties to the issue.

You are under threat because you responded to Pant's letter. Is that indicative of a public sentiment?
There have been threats, but do you see any security man outside this building? The people are with me, they are my security. A few people may not understand what we are doing at this juncture. When they begin to understand, I am confident they will agree that whatever we did was in the larger interest of the state and our people.
This has also thrown up the question who truly represents the people of Kashmir. I am open to the idea of a poll to ascertain the real representative for the specific purpose of holding talks with the Centre and Pakistan.
I don't say such a poll should be held under UN supervision. It will be satisfactory if the SAARC oversees it. I am game for it [poll] even under the scrutiny of the Indian intelligentsia.

Why is such a poll necessary when there is an elected government?
The National Conference is not questioning the accession, or saying there is a problem. So is there any need for the government to talk to them? You talk to people who say they have a problem. Besides, when you have so many factions to talk to, no serious work can be done.
The poll I am suggesting is not for the office of chief minister. This representation-for the limited purpose of participating in talks-is a genuine issue and I am suggesting a democratic way out of the impasse. If somebody else is seen by the people as their representative, I am not going to force my way into talks.

What are you offering in these talks?
We don't say hold trilateral talks immediately, get Gen. Musharraf and Vajpayee saheb at Srinagar right now. We say it is time to build bridges towards such talks, by starting talks with Pakistan at different levels. The Congress, too, says the same thing. We also say that, since the world says Kashmir is a nuclear flash point, that Pakistan is a core issue, eventually trilateral talks are necessary.
This unconditional participation on our part is because Vajpayee is flawless, and he holds out a ray of hope to me. Pant saheb's letter seems to reflect his open mind, that is healthy. If the Kashmiri people don't want a repetition of Hiroshima or Nagasaki and wish for the state's welfare, it is imperative that we be realistic. That we don't insist on the General saheb and Vajpayee saheb sitting together here and now.
The General too has spoken of a 'window of opportunity' and called Vajpayee a sincere man. So I feel that I will have to go as far as I can this time. The time is right. Vajpayee's actions will definitely be for the benefit of India, and we don't want to be rigid for the sake of being rigid. We'll show whatever flexibility we can because we have sacrificed a lot and an early solution is in everyone's interest.
You are particular about including Jammu and Ladakh in a problem the people of the Valley seem to see as their own. The struggle here is not a religious, regional or communal one. It is a quami [national] issue of the state which consists of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. We have our people on the other side [Pak-occupied Kashmir] as well. So it is not an issue of the Muslims of Kashmir Valley alone.
On our party executive, we have Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists. We have offices in all the districts and soon hope to have one each in Kathua and Udhampur as well.

What was the government's response to your delegation's visit and your letter?
If the government is serious, they'll give a positive response. If it just wants to gain an international image, it's OK. But we are hopeful of a positive response.

Can you give it any time frame?
I hope it is a turning point, a beginning. These things do generally take a lot of time, and during this time the government too must show that it means business. That could be done by releasing those detained without valid reasons and stopping atrocities on the innocent public. A large heart is definitely expected of a big leader of a huge country. If they move two steps ahead, we are willing to move three. We have not set any preconditions for our participation.

We want the real freedom fighters to be taken into confidence gradually. Most of them [foreigners] came to support the people here, in response to the call of their conscience. When they see the peace process taking firm shape, they'll go back on their own; they'll definitely lay down arms.