Opinion

Why must separatist Yasin Malik’s August 25 Delhi HC affidavit not surprise us? – Part 1

Yasin Malik’s affidavit claims UPA facilitated his meeting with Hafiz Saeed in 2006. Did Manmohan Singh’s govt weaken India’s Kashmir policy from within?

Hari Om

September 21, 2025

Yasin Malik’s affidavit claims UPA facilitated his meeting with Hafiz Saeed in 2006. Did Manmohan Singh’s govt weaken India’s Kashmir policy from within?

Undermining sovereignty, promoting separatism

On August 25, 2025, JKLF chief, Yasin Malik, who is serving a life sentence at Tihar in a terror-funding case, made certain disclosures. Actually, that day, he filed an 85-page affidavit in the Delhi High Court. It, among other things, said: He did not meet the Lashkar chief and mastermind of 26/11 Mumbai terror attack, Hafiz Saeed, in Pakistan in 2006 on his own; he met him because then Special Director Intelligence Bureau (IB), V K Joshi, “requested” him to meet with Pakistani PM and Pakistan-based terrorists, including Hafiz Saeed, “as part of a back-channel peace process”; after he returned to India from Pakistan, V K Joshi met with him in a Delhi hotel and asked him to “immediately brief PM Manmohan Singh”; he met with PM Manmohan Singh “the same evening” and “briefed” him on his meetings in Pakistan and “apprised” him on the “possibilities”; the National Security Advisor (NSA), M K Narayanan, was also “present” there; and PM Manmohan Singh thanked him for his “efforts, time, patience and dedication.”

The affidavit, inter-alia, also said: The Narendra Modi government, instead of calling him “an apostle” of peace and harmony, called him “terrorist”; betrayed him; put him in Tihar using “UAPA”; abrogated Article 370 and Article 35A; “wiped out the entire Kashmiri political leadership”; and has been “pursuing its own agenda in the State.”

In fact, Yasin Malik termed Narendra Modi’s action against him as a “case of classic betrayal.”

On September 21, the BJP reacted and termed what Yasin Malik disclosed in his affidavit as a “shocking claim.”

There is nothing whatsoever in the affidavit that should shock and surprise the BJP or the friends and well-wishers of the nation. Yasin Malik only threw light on the nature and attitude of the custodians of the Indian State. His affidavit only suggested, and very rightly, that the custodians of the Indian State, including AICC president and UPA chairperson, Sonia Gandhi, the nominated PM, Manmohan Singh, and their tools of subversion, National (In)security Advisor and Special Director IB and ilk, were all seeking to further drive J&K away from the country by undermining the national sovereignty and promoting fissiparous tendencies in Kashmir.

One can site any number of instances to prove that the Manmohan Singh-led UPA government had planned to make the Indian State retreat from J&K, but I will refer to only 13 such instances of subversion of the Indian State from within.

Just 5 days after the formation of the UPA government on May 21, 2004, then Minister of State in the Ministry of External Affairs, K Natwar Singh, told Karan Thapar of the BBC that “we are prepared to redraw the political map of India if that could resolve the Kashmir problem”.
On June 17, 2004, then Home Minister Shivraj Patil told the same channel and to the same anchor that “we have decided to reward the moderate militants”.
In April 2005, PM Manmohan Singh said that “we are prepared to consider the demand for the withdrawal of the Army from the State if it could prove a confidence-building measure.”
On February 25, 2006, PM Manmohan Singh, among other things, said: “There is a need to evolve a common understanding on autonomy and self-rule for J&K…I am confident that working together with all groups, both within and outside the mainstream, we can arrive at arrangements within the vast flexibilities provided by the constitution”. He made this statement during the first round table conference, which was held at his official residence, 7-Race Course. I was there as one of the delegates.
On March 29, 2006, then J&K Chief Minister, Ghulam Nabi Azad, said: There should be India-Pakistan “joint control over the state waters, power projects, agriculture, sericulture, horticulture, forestry and environment”. He made this statement in the Jammu University seminar a day after the J&K Governor, Lt. Gen. S K Sinha, bemoaned that the Government of India had virtually stopped calling J&K an integral part of India. He also expressed his regret in Jammu University itself. I was present on both days of the seminar.
Almost at the same time, then Union Minister for Water Resources, Saif-ud-Din Soz, said: “J&K is not a bilateral issue. It is a trilateral issue. There has to be Srinagar-Islamabad axis, Srinagar-Delhi axis and New Delhi and Islamabad”.
On May 24, 2006, PM Manmohan Singh, among other things, said: “At the close of the first round table conference in Delhi, many different views had been expressed and it was recognised that to resolve political issues, all forms of dialogue should continue…In this connection, the dialogue with the APHC was positive. ‘They are prepared to take this forward and are ready to prepare specific proposals.’ I hope that at the appropriate time, they (APHC) would also join the series of round table conferences to share their views with all of us…He has held discussions with the leaders of other organisations, also, who had earlier kept away from dialogue.”
I did not attend the second round table conference. I was then in BJP and we had boycotted it because of what PM Manmohan Singh and others had said during the first round table conference.
On April 25, 2007, the Manmohan Singh government endorsed the working groups’ recommendations. Some of them included “review and revoke laws that impinge on fundamental rights of common citizens, such as Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and Public Safety Act (PSA)” and “maintain law and order through normal laws to the maximum extent” and “start unconditional dialogue process with militant groups for finding sustainable solutions to the problem of militancy.”
I, along with my colleagues in the BJP, attended the third round table conference. I declared that the “BJP is dissociating itself from the working groups’ recommendations as these are fraught with dangerous ramifications.” I made this declaration after Shivraj Patil refused to incorporate my suggestions into the official resolution on the working groups’ recommendations.
On October 14, 2009, then Home Minister, P Chidambaram, inter alia, said: “We are not shying away from talks with anyone…Let me assure you (All India Editors Conference on Social and Infrastructure Issues in Srinagar), it will be a quiet dialogue, quiet diplomacy until we find the contours of a political solution. Once the broad contours of a political solution are arrived at, it will be made public at an appropriate time…We cannot hold the dialogue in the glare of the media…We will hold dialogue with every shade of political opinion in J&K to find a solution in a civilized way…Political parties like National Conference, PDP, and Congress have a point of view, and the effort would be to hold talks with all shades of political opinion, including some political groups advocating separatism, to arrive at the contours of a political solution which may be unique…Such a solution should be honourable and acceptable to the vast majority of the people in J&K (read Muslims)…J&K has a unique geographical location and a unique history. We have to find a solution that may turn out to be unique. There is nothing wrong with a unique solution, but we must find a solution that is honorable, equitable, and acceptable to the vast majority, overwhelming majority of the people of J&K…Solutions which are applicable to other States of the Union cannot be replicated in Kashmir…”
And, to a question “if India considered Kashmir as its integral part,” he refused to get into what he called “verbal gymnastics” on the issue. He said that “he would not like to get into these kinds of traps.”
On October 13, 2010, the Manmohan Singh government appointed three interlocutors for J&K, Dilip Padgaonkar, Radha Kumar, and M M Ansari. They were asked to submit their report by October 12, 2010.
On October 25, 2010, Dilip Padgaonkar asked students of Kashmir University to “prepare a roadmap for Azadi so that the same could be discussed during their next visit to the Valley.” Radha Kumar did not lag behind. She assured the secessionists that “they would urge the Union government to amend the Indian Constitution to accommodate the Azadi demand.”

On September 24, 2011, Padgaonkar, inter alia, said: “Kashmiris, who have borne the brunt of the violence of the past two decades, seek a political settlement rooted in ‘insaniyat’ (humanity), ‘insaf’ (justice) and ‘izzat’ (honour)” and “this is a perfectly legitimate demand.”

(to be continued)

Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.

For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.