SHEIKH GHULAM HASSAN of JAMMATE ISLAMI during an interview mentioned that participation or non participation of Kashmiris in elections doesn’t have any implication on disputed nature of the state. This statement of Jammat Ameer became headline of local dailies and was deliberated by national dailies of India as well. It was projected as a U-turn of Jammat and efforts of its Ameer to reorient its policies. Some write ups in Hindu and Frontline portrayed it as an effort of Jammat to distance from the resistance movement of Kashmir. This was so in spite if the fact that contents of the statement reflected nothing other than a UN resolution of 1957 in the same context. UN Security Council declared that “the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of the ‘All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference’ and any action that Assembly may have taken or might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire state or any part thereof, or action by the parties concerned in support of any such action by the Assembly, would not constitute a disposition of the state in accordance with the above principle” (UN Security Council Resolution 24 January 1957).
It is obvious that the resolution made it clear that elections or any act of the assembly that comes into existence as a result of it will have no impact upon final disposition of the state in accordance with UN resolutions.
Boycott or no boycott has been part of Kashmiri political discourse since Forties of previous century. Both pro-India and pro- secession groups have been involved in participation as well as boycott of elections. The idea of boycotting elections in Kashmir owes its origin to National Conference. When Maharaja Harisingh decided to establish Prajasbaha National Conference resorted to boycott of elections where as Muslim Conference contested and got majority of the seats in Prajasbaha. After annexation of Kashmir while in power National Conference participated in elections and made it a point to win seventy two out of seventy five seats without any contest. Those who dared to file nominations against National Conference candidates were made to withdraw through harassment and coercion. Once out of power, in post 1953 era, leaders of National Conference Sheikh Abdullah and Mirza Afzal Beigh created Mahazi Rai Shumari (Plebiscite Front) and again resorted to boycott of elections. This policy continued up to early seventies.
Bangladesh came into existence as a result of electoral victory of Awami League. Sheikh Abdullah realized potency of elections as a tool of secession. He wanted to participate in elections. It was not easy for Sheikh to do so because for two decades he had been launching boycott campaigns and projecting participation as blasphemy on account of requirement of taking oath of loyalty to the Indian Union and its Constitution. In order to convince people for participation a justification had to be provided. This job was done by Mirza Afzal Beigh president of Mahazi Rai Shumari. In order to provide a theoretical and ideological justification for U-turn of his party, he utilized Article 253 of the Indian Constitution which along with other things provides that concurrence of the State has to be taken for implementation of any treaty or agreement effecting the disposition of the any part of the state of Jammu & Kashmir. It was argued and rightly so that Indian constitution through this Article impliedly provides for resolution of J&K through an international treaty and accepts its disputed nature. Not only did he express his ideas through his statements and speeches but also through a petition before Supreme Court of India challenging imposition of ban on Mahazi Rai Shumari. The party had been banned after it decided to contest elections. It was this formulation of Mirza Afzal Beigh which served as justification of participation IN ELECTIONS for other separatist groups like Jammat-e-Islami and Awami Action Committee as well. Government of India didn’t bother about participation of these groups on account of their limited appeal and constituency. Jammat-e-islami did participate in elections of 1972 in the background of these developments and theoretical formulations of Afzal Beigh. It kept on participating while reiterating its stand relating to illegality of accession. Its participation in elections of 1972 was thus result of consensus among separatists on the theoretical formulation of Mirza Afzal Beigh. Awami Action Committee was part of this consensus. Abdul Rashid Kabuli is on record of saying that it was he who facilitated submission of electoral papers of Qari Saifudin, detained Jammat general secretary from Khanyar constituency on the advice of late Mirwaiz Moulana Mohd. Farooq. Mirwaiz himself did participate in the elections. The participation however was in alliance with Janta Party (1977) of which Jan Sang was also a constituent. In subsequent elections he made alliance with National Conference as well. Had Late Mirwaiz made or created an alliance with separatists the situation that arose after 1987 elections could have arisen earlier. Association with pro India parties subverted his credibility to a great extent. The allegations of Jammat participating in elections by present Mirwaiz are founded upon misinformation and deliberate concoctions. Ideologically and theoretically formulations of Mirza Afzal Beigh are still correct. Participation and non participation in elections is simply a tactical decision. Favoring participation or disfavoring has to be ascertained on the merits of it in context of its positive or negative impact upon the freedom movement. Participation or non participation is not a blasphemy. If it is, every Kashmiri politician has committed it be it Syed Ali Shah Geelani or Syed Salahuddin, Mirwaiz Maulana Farooq or Sheikh Abdullah. Participation of separatists in elections during seventies and eighties unnerved Govt. of India. At times it imposed ban on participating parties at other times it resorted to bungling and fabrication of results. It is in this backdrop that separatists resorted to boycott after nineties. Most of them argued excessive militarization and previous record of bungling as reason for this boycott. L.K. Advani has conceded in his autobiography that almost all elections in the state have been fake.
The reasons cited by separatists persist even now. Excessive militarization and rugged topography make elections vulnerable to manipulations. Absence of effective International supervision is unlikely to motivate separatists to participate. Both the factions of Hurryiat have clarified that they have no intention of participating in elections. The only difference between them and within them is about the modus oprandi of boycott and statement of Sheikh Ghulam Hassan and Mirwaiz Hurriyat leaders a reflection of it. Ambivalence and passiveness reflects and creates confusions. It depicts their policy of passive separatism. Separatist leaders need to understand that passive separatism is a card that even Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and National Conference (NC) also utilize on the eve of elections Ambivalence of separatists squeezes political space for them. Similar use of terminology like self rule and support to Musharraf’s proposals have already damaged the credibility of so called moderates. Everyone needs to pursue for a unanimous and forthright decision, be it for boycott or participation. Passiveness and using of proxies can plunge leaders into crisis of credibility as it did in case of those resorted to proxy participation in previous elections. It will also confuse the masses and make them unable to differentiate between the pro-India and pro-secessionist political formations and a tool for rulers of Delhi to marginalize the separatists.
It is obvious that the resolution made it clear that elections or any act of the assembly that comes into existence as a result of it will have no impact upon final disposition of the state in accordance with UN resolutions.
Boycott or no boycott has been part of Kashmiri political discourse since Forties of previous century. Both pro-India and pro- secession groups have been involved in participation as well as boycott of elections. The idea of boycotting elections in Kashmir owes its origin to National Conference. When Maharaja Harisingh decided to establish Prajasbaha National Conference resorted to boycott of elections where as Muslim Conference contested and got majority of the seats in Prajasbaha. After annexation of Kashmir while in power National Conference participated in elections and made it a point to win seventy two out of seventy five seats without any contest. Those who dared to file nominations against National Conference candidates were made to withdraw through harassment and coercion. Once out of power, in post 1953 era, leaders of National Conference Sheikh Abdullah and Mirza Afzal Beigh created Mahazi Rai Shumari (Plebiscite Front) and again resorted to boycott of elections. This policy continued up to early seventies.
Bangladesh came into existence as a result of electoral victory of Awami League. Sheikh Abdullah realized potency of elections as a tool of secession. He wanted to participate in elections. It was not easy for Sheikh to do so because for two decades he had been launching boycott campaigns and projecting participation as blasphemy on account of requirement of taking oath of loyalty to the Indian Union and its Constitution. In order to convince people for participation a justification had to be provided. This job was done by Mirza Afzal Beigh president of Mahazi Rai Shumari. In order to provide a theoretical and ideological justification for U-turn of his party, he utilized Article 253 of the Indian Constitution which along with other things provides that concurrence of the State has to be taken for implementation of any treaty or agreement effecting the disposition of the any part of the state of Jammu & Kashmir. It was argued and rightly so that Indian constitution through this Article impliedly provides for resolution of J&K through an international treaty and accepts its disputed nature. Not only did he express his ideas through his statements and speeches but also through a petition before Supreme Court of India challenging imposition of ban on Mahazi Rai Shumari. The party had been banned after it decided to contest elections. It was this formulation of Mirza Afzal Beigh which served as justification of participation IN ELECTIONS for other separatist groups like Jammat-e-Islami and Awami Action Committee as well. Government of India didn’t bother about participation of these groups on account of their limited appeal and constituency. Jammat-e-islami did participate in elections of 1972 in the background of these developments and theoretical formulations of Afzal Beigh. It kept on participating while reiterating its stand relating to illegality of accession. Its participation in elections of 1972 was thus result of consensus among separatists on the theoretical formulation of Mirza Afzal Beigh. Awami Action Committee was part of this consensus. Abdul Rashid Kabuli is on record of saying that it was he who facilitated submission of electoral papers of Qari Saifudin, detained Jammat general secretary from Khanyar constituency on the advice of late Mirwaiz Moulana Mohd. Farooq. Mirwaiz himself did participate in the elections. The participation however was in alliance with Janta Party (1977) of which Jan Sang was also a constituent. In subsequent elections he made alliance with National Conference as well. Had Late Mirwaiz made or created an alliance with separatists the situation that arose after 1987 elections could have arisen earlier. Association with pro India parties subverted his credibility to a great extent. The allegations of Jammat participating in elections by present Mirwaiz are founded upon misinformation and deliberate concoctions. Ideologically and theoretically formulations of Mirza Afzal Beigh are still correct. Participation and non participation in elections is simply a tactical decision. Favoring participation or disfavoring has to be ascertained on the merits of it in context of its positive or negative impact upon the freedom movement. Participation or non participation is not a blasphemy. If it is, every Kashmiri politician has committed it be it Syed Ali Shah Geelani or Syed Salahuddin, Mirwaiz Maulana Farooq or Sheikh Abdullah. Participation of separatists in elections during seventies and eighties unnerved Govt. of India. At times it imposed ban on participating parties at other times it resorted to bungling and fabrication of results. It is in this backdrop that separatists resorted to boycott after nineties. Most of them argued excessive militarization and previous record of bungling as reason for this boycott. L.K. Advani has conceded in his autobiography that almost all elections in the state have been fake.
The reasons cited by separatists persist even now. Excessive militarization and rugged topography make elections vulnerable to manipulations. Absence of effective International supervision is unlikely to motivate separatists to participate. Both the factions of Hurryiat have clarified that they have no intention of participating in elections. The only difference between them and within them is about the modus oprandi of boycott and statement of Sheikh Ghulam Hassan and Mirwaiz Hurriyat leaders a reflection of it. Ambivalence and passiveness reflects and creates confusions. It depicts their policy of passive separatism. Separatist leaders need to understand that passive separatism is a card that even Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and National Conference (NC) also utilize on the eve of elections Ambivalence of separatists squeezes political space for them. Similar use of terminology like self rule and support to Musharraf’s proposals have already damaged the credibility of so called moderates. Everyone needs to pursue for a unanimous and forthright decision, be it for boycott or participation. Passiveness and using of proxies can plunge leaders into crisis of credibility as it did in case of those resorted to proxy participation in previous elections. It will also confuse the masses and make them unable to differentiate between the pro-India and pro-secessionist political formations and a tool for rulers of Delhi to marginalize the separatists.
No comments:
Post a Comment