General Musharaff has embarked upon a peace offensive after Bill Clinton’s visit to the Indo-Pak subcontinent. The media hype created by the Indian government about a dialogue with Kashmiri leaders is nothing but an attempt to blunt the peace offensive. Pakistan has offered to discuss Kashmir with India anywhere in the world. Indian government is continuously refusing to discuss the issue. Sometimes it wants Pakistan to revert back to democracy, at other times it expects Pakistan to create peaceful atmosphere conducive to dialogue. General Musharaff rightly says that peace can be result of a dialogue, not a precondition for it. His statements are likely to generate an impression that it is India which does not favour a peaceful solution to the Kashmir problem. To erase this impression, India has started to harp on its offers of dialogue with Hurriyat leaders and is creating a lot of euphoria about it.
It is not for the first time that such euphoria is being created. When Babar Badar, Imran Rahi and Bilal Lodhi decided to enter into negotiations, their images were magnified as if they were the sole spokesmen of the militants in Kashmir. After sometime the euphoria died down. Some of them managed to become MLA’s whereas others were relegated to the status of untouchables. Imran Rahi thus moves from pillar to post and none is ready to accommodate him. Later on when Shabir Shah expressed his views in support of a dialogue he too was released like present Hurriyat leaders and projected as Nelson Mandela of Kashmir. Within a couple of months however, the balloon fizzled out and Nelson Mandela of yesteryears fell in the estimation of people. The one who used to be received by thousands is unable to muster gatherings of dozens nowadays. For a brief period Yasin Malik too was projected same way. He however realized implications of such an adventure and returned to the mainstream freedom movement. Nowadays whole of the Hurriyat Conference is being groomed on the same lines. Such attempts didn’t yield any result in Punjab besides the death of Harchand Singh Longwal.
Until last month government and the Indian Media refused to recognize representative character of the Hurriyat. Their press statements seldom found a place in the Indian media. Today whole of the media is projecting them. Their interviews and press conferences are getting a reflection through Doordarshan and All India Radio as well while this media hype goes on ordinary political workers are being subject to annihilation campaign. Scores of boys are picked up subjected to third degree torture and killed under custody every day. All talk of dialogue merely serves as a cover to this campaign of terror and tyranny. Hurriyat consciously or unconsciously also contributes to this Indian propaganda. They issue confusing statements which are projected as indicators of some overt understanding between them and the government. It was Mr Abdul Gani Lone who for the first time during his speech in India International Center indicated that Hurriyat favours a dialogue of the type that was concluded between the Indian government and some insurgent groups of North East. Professor Abdul Gani was reported by Doordarshan as saying they were are for a dialogue even if not invited for it. Syed Ali Geelani got ready for the division of Kashmir even before receiving an invitation for deliberations from Indian government.
Hurriyat leaders who are not accustomed to doing any home work seem to be slipping into Indian trap. They are keen on being seen as moderates because some of their overseas advisors are telling them that the dialogue offer has come on behest of Americans and it has something in store for them. They do not have a local mechanism of consultation or organization to understand the sentiments of the masses. They rush to Pakistan embassy to seek advice or convey an impression that whatever they are doing has blessings of Pakistan as well. Pak-embassy can be of little help in situations where leaders are supposed to deliver on their own. It can only convey the stand of Pak-government. Bureaucrats are unfamiliar with the dimensions of mass movements. The overseas self appointed champions do not want to annoy their host countries. They too are unfamiliar with the social dimensions of this problem. Hurriyat has to decide whether it wants to be a spokesman of the masses or spokesman of its overseas advisors. Offers of dialogue accompanied by campaigns of terror and torture need to be analyzed in their proper perspective. Instead of becoming part of Indian propaganda campaign Hurriyat Conference should devise strategy of exposing their moves. Release of leaders does not create an atmosphere conducive to dialogue. It comes through respect of basic human rights. These include right to live, liberty of organizing public meetings and demonstrations, revocation of draconian laws and release of those who have been languishing in Indian Jails for years. Withdrawal of Indian security forces can also be part of confidence building measures.
The way India is asking Pakistan to create an atmosphere conducive for a dialogue Hurriyat has to ask India to pave way for the same.
Sincerity of moves for peace has to be tested in context of attitude of the Indian administration towards these issues. Hurriyat has to subject Indian State to a test in relation to restoration of these rights. Only this will expose reality of Indian offer for dialogue. Moves in this context may seem to be contradictory to Pak peace offensive but they will complement it. It further needs to be made clear that no viable solution is possible without involvement of Pakistan and a process of ascertaining the wishes of Kashmir people.
The leaders however seem to be eager to be part of any dispensation that comes from New Delhi. They do not bother to evaluate merits of Indian postures nor are they ready to evolve a consensus within the community. Some of them have become voice of their overseas advisors while others deliberate within their relations as if Kashmir issue relates to distribution of their private estates. If Hurriyat leaders are tired they may go for any solution. The solution however is unlikely to change the ground realities. Kashmir issue did survive division and defeat of Pakistan in 1971. It survived Shimla and Tashkent agreements. It couldn’t be overtaken by Indira-Abdullah accord nor by Rajiv-Farooq accord. Kashmir will continue to be an issue even if same type of agreements are made again. Those politicians who get involved in such agreement will however risk losing their own leadership
It is not for the first time that such euphoria is being created. When Babar Badar, Imran Rahi and Bilal Lodhi decided to enter into negotiations, their images were magnified as if they were the sole spokesmen of the militants in Kashmir. After sometime the euphoria died down. Some of them managed to become MLA’s whereas others were relegated to the status of untouchables. Imran Rahi thus moves from pillar to post and none is ready to accommodate him. Later on when Shabir Shah expressed his views in support of a dialogue he too was released like present Hurriyat leaders and projected as Nelson Mandela of Kashmir. Within a couple of months however, the balloon fizzled out and Nelson Mandela of yesteryears fell in the estimation of people. The one who used to be received by thousands is unable to muster gatherings of dozens nowadays. For a brief period Yasin Malik too was projected same way. He however realized implications of such an adventure and returned to the mainstream freedom movement. Nowadays whole of the Hurriyat Conference is being groomed on the same lines. Such attempts didn’t yield any result in Punjab besides the death of Harchand Singh Longwal.
Until last month government and the Indian Media refused to recognize representative character of the Hurriyat. Their press statements seldom found a place in the Indian media. Today whole of the media is projecting them. Their interviews and press conferences are getting a reflection through Doordarshan and All India Radio as well while this media hype goes on ordinary political workers are being subject to annihilation campaign. Scores of boys are picked up subjected to third degree torture and killed under custody every day. All talk of dialogue merely serves as a cover to this campaign of terror and tyranny. Hurriyat consciously or unconsciously also contributes to this Indian propaganda. They issue confusing statements which are projected as indicators of some overt understanding between them and the government. It was Mr Abdul Gani Lone who for the first time during his speech in India International Center indicated that Hurriyat favours a dialogue of the type that was concluded between the Indian government and some insurgent groups of North East. Professor Abdul Gani was reported by Doordarshan as saying they were are for a dialogue even if not invited for it. Syed Ali Geelani got ready for the division of Kashmir even before receiving an invitation for deliberations from Indian government.
Hurriyat leaders who are not accustomed to doing any home work seem to be slipping into Indian trap. They are keen on being seen as moderates because some of their overseas advisors are telling them that the dialogue offer has come on behest of Americans and it has something in store for them. They do not have a local mechanism of consultation or organization to understand the sentiments of the masses. They rush to Pakistan embassy to seek advice or convey an impression that whatever they are doing has blessings of Pakistan as well. Pak-embassy can be of little help in situations where leaders are supposed to deliver on their own. It can only convey the stand of Pak-government. Bureaucrats are unfamiliar with the dimensions of mass movements. The overseas self appointed champions do not want to annoy their host countries. They too are unfamiliar with the social dimensions of this problem. Hurriyat has to decide whether it wants to be a spokesman of the masses or spokesman of its overseas advisors. Offers of dialogue accompanied by campaigns of terror and torture need to be analyzed in their proper perspective. Instead of becoming part of Indian propaganda campaign Hurriyat Conference should devise strategy of exposing their moves. Release of leaders does not create an atmosphere conducive to dialogue. It comes through respect of basic human rights. These include right to live, liberty of organizing public meetings and demonstrations, revocation of draconian laws and release of those who have been languishing in Indian Jails for years. Withdrawal of Indian security forces can also be part of confidence building measures.
The way India is asking Pakistan to create an atmosphere conducive for a dialogue Hurriyat has to ask India to pave way for the same.
Sincerity of moves for peace has to be tested in context of attitude of the Indian administration towards these issues. Hurriyat has to subject Indian State to a test in relation to restoration of these rights. Only this will expose reality of Indian offer for dialogue. Moves in this context may seem to be contradictory to Pak peace offensive but they will complement it. It further needs to be made clear that no viable solution is possible without involvement of Pakistan and a process of ascertaining the wishes of Kashmir people.
The leaders however seem to be eager to be part of any dispensation that comes from New Delhi. They do not bother to evaluate merits of Indian postures nor are they ready to evolve a consensus within the community. Some of them have become voice of their overseas advisors while others deliberate within their relations as if Kashmir issue relates to distribution of their private estates. If Hurriyat leaders are tired they may go for any solution. The solution however is unlikely to change the ground realities. Kashmir issue did survive division and defeat of Pakistan in 1971. It survived Shimla and Tashkent agreements. It couldn’t be overtaken by Indira-Abdullah accord nor by Rajiv-Farooq accord. Kashmir will continue to be an issue even if same type of agreements are made again. Those politicians who get involved in such agreement will however risk losing their own leadership
No comments:
Post a Comment