|
APHC:
Penultimate Chance
Hamid
Bashani
As
the dark clouds of war are vanishing from South Asia, the issue of
the Kashmir election to be held in Late September or early October
is becoming the focus Of international attention. The 23 parties
Conglomerate, All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) has already
declined to participate in the forthcoming polls because firstly the
polls would be held within the framework of the Indian constitution,
which APHC do not consider valid in Kashmir.
Secondly it believes the
polls would not be free and transparent and status quo would be
maintained through massive rigging. Thirdly the election would not
help in the resolution of the Kashmir issue, the principal focus of
alliance’s activities. This is not the first time the APHC has
launched a campaign to boycott the election. Since its formation in
1993,the alliance has been convincing the people of Kashmir to stay
out of the democratic process and boycott the election, if held
within the framework of the Indian constitution. The APHC is of the
opinion that The constitution of India does not address and cannot
empower the state government and legislative assembly to address the
Kashmir issue, therefore the whole exercise of election is futile
and unlikely to make any difference in the existing situation.
Participation in this election means to Jeopardise the struggle for
the right to Self-determination and to be the integral part of the
Legal and constitutional structure of the Indian Union. Although
some senior leaders time after time have contested the election and
remained the members of the Kashmir legislative assembly under the
auspices of Indian constitution.
Most vocal opponent of the election
and a top leader of the alliance Syed Ali Geelani himself had been
the member of this assembly for fifteen years. It was only after
1987, when the Muslim united front lost the election and the
militant outfits started mushrooming in the vale of Kashmir, some
leaders began questioning the supremacy of Indian constitution and
transparency of the election process. In the forthcoming polls,
senior Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Geelani roles out the possibility of
a fair election even if it is monitored by international observers.
Geelani insists that the Indian security forces and military would
steel the election even in the presence of the observers and
monitoring groups. To understand the APHC’s perspective, one has
to understand the history of formation, structure and manifesto of
the alliance.
The APHC was not formed in a smooth political or
democratic process. Fundamentally, this alliance is the by-product
of militancy in Kashmir. The militant outfits and their sponsors
forced these 23 groups, ranging from ultra right wing Islamic
fundamentalists, pseudo-secular and nationalists to the so-called
moderates, to form this politically odd and highly complex
conglomerate to represent the militancy on the political and
diplomatic front. The alliance failed to develop a common and clear
vision of the future of Kashmir and cannot even unanimously define
the right of self-determination in its central executive committee,
let alone the ranks and files of its constituent members. Mere
mention of the issue of accession to India, Pakistan or independence
leads towards serious clashes in its close- door meetings and public
demonstrations. The alliance also has serious difference of opinion
and irresolvable contradictions on the socio-political system of an
independent Kashmir. After independence, Kashmir should be a secular
or a theocratic state governed by Islamic laws is a question of
fundamental nature while striving for the freedom or autonomous
status or complete independence of the state. The alliance is
unwilling and in fact completely unable to raise and discuss this
question even on its Policy-making bodies and at open public forums.
Right-leaning Islamic fundamentalist groups like Jamaat-e-Islami,
Muslim conference, Dukhteran-e-Milat consider the freedom struggle as
sacred jihad and a religious obligation against infidels and Indian
secular socio-political system. Their dream and political objective
is to merge with Pakistan and create a Taliban or Saudi- Brand
medieval Islamic society with full-fledged execution of Islamic
jurisprudence, obviously with little room for modern concept of
freedom, human rights and principle of natural justice. On the other
hand,the so-called secularist Groups like JKLF suffers from
terminological inexactitude and fails to outline its principal
objectives. Since its formation in 1977, the JKLF has been unable to
define the legal and constitutional formation and socio-economic
system for a free and independent Kashmir.
When it claims to form a
democratic and secular state it cannot explain why it should be
separated from India, and when it goes for Islamic state, it is hard
to explain why it should not merge with Pakistan. A
pseudo-nationalist approach without clear vision of future and
without defining a socio-economic system, which is not clearly
different and better than that of India and Pakistan, cannot attract
the common masses and do not provide solid grounds to participate in
the polls. The top ranking policy makers in the alliance believe
that a debate on these issues would inevitably split the
conglomerate in to many microscopic groups with unspeakable blames
and accusation on each other and would provide high moral grounds
for Dr Farooq Abdullah’s national conference and other parties
with relatively clear stand on these issues. In order to elude this
scenario, they believe the best course of action is to not open the
discussion on these controversial issues and avoid the election or
any other form of democratic process which would inevitably open
this Pandora-box and put the alliance’s credential on trail. The
problem with this stand is that it’s totally at odds with the very
principle of the right of self-determination for which the
conglomerate claims to be fighting for. The APHC cannot claim that
it is fighting for the right of self-determination, which is
essentially a democratic right, and at the same time refuse to
follow a universally recognised democratic process to prove its
legitimacy and its representative character.
As for as the question
of transparency and fair election is concerned, the APHC has
reasonable grounds to believe that the election could be rigged and
have every right to ask for a credible monitoring system. On this
issue it deserve the benefit of doubt. The government of India has
to show a considerable degree of flexibility on monitoring system
and possibility to allow international or local observers in the
election. India’s chief Election Commissioner J. M. Lyngdoh has
already mad it clear that poll experts from countries with good
domestic credentials could be allowed to see the poll process in
Jammu and Kashmir.People who have well established credibility like
Tapan K.Bose and Ved Bhasin, and who were previously nominated for
Hurriyat’s private election commission could be trusted for
monitoring and observation. In the changing political scenario, the
APHC is on the crossroad and would be no longer able continue its
stand against democratic process and remain relevant in Kashmiri
politics.
Without going through a democratic process it has no legal,
political and moral grounds to claim that it is speaking for the
people of Kashmir. A vast majority of the people of Kashmir is
neutral and silent in the complex political situation, prevailing
now a days in Jammu and Kashmir. Many political parties, with
substantial following in the common masses are not the part of this
alliance. Hurriyat has to understand that the National conference
might have won the election in 1987 and subsequently in 1996 through
rigging or use of some unfair means,but it does not make it
irrelevant in Kashmir Affairs and cannot be excluded from dialogue
on the issue. . As the APHC cannot deny the fact that Peoples Party
Azad Kashmir in 1996, and Jummu & Kashmir Muslim Conference in
2001,took the office of the government of Azad Kashmir through
massive pre-election rigging, by rejecting the nomination papers of
all pro-independence candidates, Virtually leaving no opposition in
the field, but APHC Not only closely interacted with these parties
but also accepted their leading role in the struggle for the
resolution of the issue.
The APHC is closely working with Sardar
Abdul Qayyum Khan, chairman of Pakistan’s national committee on
Kashmir, despite his staunch Pro-Pakistan role, brutal violations of
the principle Of right of self-determination and draconian measures
Taken by him against pro-independent candidates, as the president of
Azad Kashmir in 1996. The APHC has to adopt the same pragmatic
approach towards its bitter opponents and accept their right to be
party in daily affairs and in future settlement of the Kashmir
imbroglio. After all only a democratic process can decide who is
enjoying majority in the masses irrespective of political ideology
and stand on the future of Kashmir. If the APHC considers itself the
most popular group in Kashmir then it Should have no problem in
proving its claim through The recognised democratic process of
election after asking for procedural fairness and suitable
safeguards against rigging. Until now, the APHC has been acting as
an umbrella organisation for militants, now its time for it to prove
its mandate and legitimise itself as a Political group otherwise it
might be the beginning of The end of this conglomerate as a relevant
voice in The affairs of Kashmir
The writer is a Toronto based
commentator and a specialist on Kashmir affairs
>>> back |
