Islamabad -UNS:Mushaal Hussein Mullick ,Chairperson, Peace & Culture Organization | Former SAPM on Human Rights & Women Empowerment and Wife of Kashmiri Leader Mohammad Yasin Malik strongly condemned the framing of her husband, Mohammad Yasin Malik, in Al-Jazeera’s article “Yasin Malik, Kashmir’s best-known separatist, an Indian intelligence asset?” To describe him as an “asset of India” is not only misleading but also a grave injustice to his lifelong sacrifices. It creates the false impression that he was working at the behest of India rather than for the Kashmiri people, which is deeply prejudicial and untrue.
The article itself acknowledges that “Malik claimed to have met top Indian leaders, including Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh, and engaged in backchannel diplomacy.” Yet instead of recognizing these as courageous peace initiatives, it casts them in suspicion, ignoring that these meetings were supported by both Pakistan and India at the time and welcomed by the international community as part of conflict resolution efforts.
Similarly, highlighting his affidavit about meeting Hafiz Saeed under Indian facilitation without context is unfair. The reality is that Yasin Malik consistently reached out to all sides to prevent bloodshed and advance dialogue, something global mediators have long recognized as a mark of his leadership.
Yasin Malik is not an asset of India. He is an asset of peace. For decades, he worked with the international establishment, Pakistan, and India to pursue a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir issue. His affidavit should be understood as a testimony of his undying efforts for reconciliation and dialogue, not as a weapon to question his integrity.
Unfortunately, the article cherry-picks points while failing to highlight the most crucial truths:
• the unfair trial seeking to convert his life sentence into a death sentence
• the physical and mental torture he endures in solitary confinement
• the denial of basic rights including the right to speak to or meet his wife and daughter
• his phenomenal peace efforts, where both India and Pakistan, as well as international mediators, engaged him as the peaceful face of Kashmir
• and most importantly, his historic renunciation of armed struggle, one of the bravest political decisions in Kashmir’s modern history
By presenting his nonviolent transformation as if it was “engineered” by intelligence handlers, the article demeans his moral courage and strips away the essence of his struggle. By sensationalizing, it overlooks the humanitarian reality: a man who now faces an unfair hanging trial, who has spent years in solitary confinement, and who is denied even the basic right to meet his wife and daughter.
This portrayal went very low. It dishonors his sacrifices, his conscience, and his vision of a peaceful South Asia.
