Professor Abdul Gani Bhat while heading the Hurriyat Conference expressed intention of initiating a dialogue with both India and Pakistan. He didn’t elaborate the agenda of deliberations either in public or within Hurriyat circles. This statement was followed by cease fire offer of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and a positive response towards it by the Hurriyat Conference. When cease fire commenced, Professor Bhat again announced that he intended to proceed to Pakistan along with other Hurriyat leaders to motivate the militant leaders over there for a positive response towards the cease fire announced by India. This statement was also endorsed by Hurriyat Executive. However, masses started feeling a bit uneasy about it. Common man in Srinagar perceived it to be a radical shift. Hurriyat until now was perceived to be spokesman of Kashmiri interests but its latest posture created an impression that instead of remaining representative of Kashmiris, it has overnight assumed role of a messenger of India. Hurriyat meanwhile took a stand that it intends to initiate a dialogue with India as well. This further compounded the situation. Common perception about this posture was that there is already an understanding between India and some Hurriyat leaders. What these leaders intend to do was to seek endorsement of this understanding from Pakistani leaders thus camouflage the plan as if it is being pursued with the concurrence of Pakistanis.
A group of Hurriyat leaders led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani started to distance from the direction towards which the Hurriyat Chairman was proceeding and sought assurances that the bottom line for these deliberations is announced. Although in the meetings of Hurriyat Executive other leaders did concur with the views of Geelani, but outside they started to denounce the militant groups operating in the valley. Abdul Gani Lone of Peoples Conference went to the extent of saying that foreign militants are a hurdle in the way of resolution of the Kashmir dispute.
Pakistan’s announcement of reciprocating extended cease fire by withdrawal of its forces from cease-fire line and Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s statement that he is ready to innovate for the sake of resolving Kashmir dispute convey that something is in offing about Kashmir. The newspapers have reported that converting present line of control into a porous border, dissociating Hindus and Buddhist dominated enclaves of Jammu and Kashmir from the Muslim majority areas and their merger with rest of India is the second part of the plan. Its third part consists of granting autonomy to the Muslim majority areas of Kashmir. It has also been reported that the plan may include withdrawal of some Indian forces from the Muslim majority areas as well. The infrastructure and establishments of the Indian army within the valley will however be maintained so that any future redeployment is facilitated.
The plan seems to be nothing more than what India had been proposing time and again through different channels to the local leaders and International media. Even if executed in its totality with the concurrence of Pakistani rulers as well, the plan definitely offers nothing new and is not up to the expectations of Kashmiri people. In due course, it may be interpreted as a plan that has conferred the status of International border upon the Line of Control and Pakistan will be required to assure its sanctity. Some segments of Kashmiri leadership on the other hand, may interpret it to be a step towards the final emancipation of the state. For those who joined the movement to inflate their own political fortunes such an interpretation will help them dissociate from the movement and even persuade people to do the same.
Identification with the plan of those who joined the movement for realisation of a vision and a mission will however be devastating. On one side it will tarnish their credibility, on the other hand deprive them of any initiative to change the situation to their advantage. The best course of action for them is to remain aloof from it even if expediency may demand indifference towards its execution.
Plans of past didn’t prove viable whereas dissenters of those plans became masters of the future. On the other hand those who became party to them got dumped into the dustbin of history. Bhutto was opponent of the Tashkent Agreement. It was this opposition that led to his emergence as a popular leader in Pakistan. Same way , those who opposed Shimla Agreement became masters of Pakistan’s destiny and Bhutto who was a party to it was overthrown within a span of few years. Recent example is that of Nawaz Sharief who couldn’t continue his office for more than a year after agreeing to withdraw forces along LOC in Kargil. The choice now is for Kashmiri leaders whether they want to get dumped by becoming part of any dispensation between India and Pakistan or whether they want to become masters of the future by remaining dissenters of the dispensation. Even if the proposed dispensation is the only viable way out for the time being, it should not become our destiny; rather a steps in our march towards our destiny. If all of them subscribe to the present dispensation who is going to pursue the next step? Next phase of freedom struggle is surely going to start once any euphoria about the present dispensation fizzles out. It is in this context that there is reluctance to become part of the delegation to Pakistan. Every ones endorsement of the plan is likely to make any retreat impossible in future.
A group of Hurriyat leaders led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani started to distance from the direction towards which the Hurriyat Chairman was proceeding and sought assurances that the bottom line for these deliberations is announced. Although in the meetings of Hurriyat Executive other leaders did concur with the views of Geelani, but outside they started to denounce the militant groups operating in the valley. Abdul Gani Lone of Peoples Conference went to the extent of saying that foreign militants are a hurdle in the way of resolution of the Kashmir dispute.
Pakistan’s announcement of reciprocating extended cease fire by withdrawal of its forces from cease-fire line and Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s statement that he is ready to innovate for the sake of resolving Kashmir dispute convey that something is in offing about Kashmir. The newspapers have reported that converting present line of control into a porous border, dissociating Hindus and Buddhist dominated enclaves of Jammu and Kashmir from the Muslim majority areas and their merger with rest of India is the second part of the plan. Its third part consists of granting autonomy to the Muslim majority areas of Kashmir. It has also been reported that the plan may include withdrawal of some Indian forces from the Muslim majority areas as well. The infrastructure and establishments of the Indian army within the valley will however be maintained so that any future redeployment is facilitated.
The plan seems to be nothing more than what India had been proposing time and again through different channels to the local leaders and International media. Even if executed in its totality with the concurrence of Pakistani rulers as well, the plan definitely offers nothing new and is not up to the expectations of Kashmiri people. In due course, it may be interpreted as a plan that has conferred the status of International border upon the Line of Control and Pakistan will be required to assure its sanctity. Some segments of Kashmiri leadership on the other hand, may interpret it to be a step towards the final emancipation of the state. For those who joined the movement to inflate their own political fortunes such an interpretation will help them dissociate from the movement and even persuade people to do the same.
Identification with the plan of those who joined the movement for realisation of a vision and a mission will however be devastating. On one side it will tarnish their credibility, on the other hand deprive them of any initiative to change the situation to their advantage. The best course of action for them is to remain aloof from it even if expediency may demand indifference towards its execution.
Plans of past didn’t prove viable whereas dissenters of those plans became masters of the future. On the other hand those who became party to them got dumped into the dustbin of history. Bhutto was opponent of the Tashkent Agreement. It was this opposition that led to his emergence as a popular leader in Pakistan. Same way , those who opposed Shimla Agreement became masters of Pakistan’s destiny and Bhutto who was a party to it was overthrown within a span of few years. Recent example is that of Nawaz Sharief who couldn’t continue his office for more than a year after agreeing to withdraw forces along LOC in Kargil. The choice now is for Kashmiri leaders whether they want to get dumped by becoming part of any dispensation between India and Pakistan or whether they want to become masters of the future by remaining dissenters of the dispensation. Even if the proposed dispensation is the only viable way out for the time being, it should not become our destiny; rather a steps in our march towards our destiny. If all of them subscribe to the present dispensation who is going to pursue the next step? Next phase of freedom struggle is surely going to start once any euphoria about the present dispensation fizzles out. It is in this context that there is reluctance to become part of the delegation to Pakistan. Every ones endorsement of the plan is likely to make any retreat impossible in future.
No comments:
Post a Comment