|
Hurriyat:
A house divided
T
V A
The
All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) is a conglomerate of 26
political, social and religious organisations which came into
existence 9 March, 1993. From the beginning, it has been a divided
house with its clearly identifiable hawk and dove factions. There
are in it those who seek the merger of Kashmir with Pakistan and
those who wish to remain independent. Primarily, it is a stooge of
Pakistan, taking orders from Islamabad. It claims to be an
indigenous outfit unlike some other outfits which do not belong to
the soil. The Jammu Kashmir Liberation front sees the future of
Kashmir as an independent state, outside India's sovereignty. There
are also foreign mercenaries and Pakistan-based outfits in Kashmir
without any indigenous membership.
When, in 1998, Syed
Ali Shah Geelani was elected as chairman of the APHC, other Hurriyat
members and chiefly Yasin Malik and Shabir Shah dubbed it a
'Pakistan take over'. Geelani was the nominee of Jamatee Islamic (JI)
and he publicly declared that he favoured the accession of Kashmir
to Pakistan. He termed the Kashmir crisis a religious issue. On 13
July, 2000 Maulana Abbas Ansari was elected as chairman JI abstained
from the election meeting. Pakistan did not recognise Ansari's
election to Hurriyat chairmanship.
That caused the
election of Geelani as chairman. Pakistan went out of the way to
welcome it. Pak television said that the Hurriyat's General Council
and its Executive Council had unanimously elected Geelani which was
factually incorrect Ansari was ousted because he was a moderate. He
suggested opening of the dialogue with India to be followed up later
by dialogue with Pakistan. Islamabad wanted tripartite talks.
Ansari's suggestion was unwelcome to Pakistan which was afraid that
bilateral talks first with India would make Pakistan irrelevant. The
Hurriyat split over this issue.
Geelani says, on
the contrary, that the Hurriyat has not split but has got rid of
some black sheep in it that had emerged as its leaders during the
last three years. Geelani says that the relevant criteria is
provided by the Hurriyat's constitution. According to it, only those
will be considered true leaders of Hurriyat who will work to uphold
the constitution that clearly says that the Kashmir issue should be
resolved in the light of the UN Resolutions and that so far as talks
are concerned, they should be trilateral between India and Pakistan
and the freedom loving people of Jammu-Kashmir under the supervision
of the UN or any friendly country.
To the question
about the crime committed by the black sheep, Geelani says that,
when the constitution forbade its members from participating in
elections, these people participated, they had sidelined Pakistan
and 'sat in the lap of the cunning Indians'. Geelani accuses them of
compromising on bogus issues such as internal autonomy and that all
this had disappointed and enraged the freedom fighters (read
insurgents). All these observations of Geelani make one point very
clear. Contrary to his stout denials, he is the mouthpiece of
Pakistan; he is making the Hurriyat toe the Pakistani line on
Kashmir such as asking for trilateral talks, respecting the obsolete
UN Resolutions and glorifying the savages, the militants, as freedom
fighters. If New Delhi were to involve itself with a dialogue with
the Hurriyat, it would end up as a fruitless exercise.
The relevant detail
here is that, when the international community or particularly the
US asks India to resume dialogue with Pakistan, it refuses to
concede the most valid point that India is making, namely, that
Kashmir is not disputed territory and that those who have occupied a
part of it have as much right as any aggressor would have. It is no
doubt true that the prime Nehruvian blunder of first halting the
fight in the hour of victory and then compounding that mistake by
taking the issue to the UN stupidly overlooking the reality that no
foreign institution had the right to arbitrate on the territorial
rights of a sovereign country have brought India and its diplomacy
to this pretty pass.
Indeed Nehru
created the condition in which the sovereign rights of India over
Kashmir were foresworn to create the illusion of his being the right
minded politician upholding high ethical values. The Congress for
which those of the Nehru dynasty are the irresistible mascots have
gone on the track beaten by Nehru. Congressmen therefore are the
least justified in saying whatever they say in a sort of distorted
criticism of successor governments.
|
