Hurriyat's mask comes off

By Kuldip Nayar

It is more than a conjecture that the All-Party Hurriyat Conference did not want to take any decision. It is a divided house. Some members, led by Mr. Yaseen Malik, want azadi (independence) for Kashmir. Some in the camp of Syed Ali Shah Geelani favour the State's integration with Pakistan. Many in the 27-party organisation would like to have links with India, but with more autonomy than has been given by the Instrument of Accession.

All this is too confusing. The chairman, Mr. Abdul Ghani Bhat, was at a loss to put together the jigsaw. A consensus was out of the question. There was no solution which could satisfy all. So, he preferred to put the ball in New Delhi's court. But he has ill-served the Kashmiris, who are tired of violence and who want at least peace, if they cannot get normalcy.

The Hurriyat expects that the violence, which Islamabad fuels from across the border, will force New Delhi to make a unilateral offer to Srinagar. The Hurriyat can then consider it the starting point. But where it has erred is that it has taken itself out with public opinion in the country.

Many in India were coming round to accept the viewpoint that the Hurriyat's reason for going to Pakistan had weight. It was beginning to be believed that the Hurriyat leaders were keen on bringing about peace for meaningful talks. Despite the warning by some important voices in the Government that the Hurriyat's posture was a mask, which would come off one day, pressure was building up for letting its team go.

The mask has come off sooner than expected. The Hurriyat's decision to play the role of a mediator indicates what was in its mind at the very outset. Its contention that it could persuade militants in Pakistan not to send their men and weapons into Kashmir has turned out to be only a pretext to get permission to cross the border.

In the same mould

By coming into the open, the Hurriyat leaders have separated fact from fiction. They have also made themselves irrelevant. They have strengthened the belief that the Hurriyat and Pakistan are two sides of the same coin.

Then why should New Delhi use their good offices? Their credentials are doubtful and they have given a fundamentalist edge to a movement which once reflected a revolt against New Delhi's suppression.

The problem is that the Hurriyat wants to have a role which its strength does not entitle it to play. Even if its claim that it represents the entire Valley is accepted, it has no following in Jammu and Ladakh. India cannot accept the trifurcation of the State because it would tell upon its secular polity.

Any solution has to be non-communal. Islamabad should have encouraged the Hurriyat to have a dialogue with New Delhi. It would have helped Pakistan know how far India was willing to go and plan its response accordingly.

Conditional talks

The Hurriyat's contention that only a trilateral dialogue, that is, among India, Pakistan and Kashmir, could pave the way for ``a permanent solution'' is not incorrect. But the third party has to be the State as a whole, Jammu and Kashmir, not just the Valley and, by no stretch of the imagination, the Hurriyat alone.

Mr. Bhat has said the Hurriyat represents Kashmir and the rest is ``crowd''. How can he say that when the Hurriyat leaders' popularity has never been tested? In a democracy, the crowd counts, not those who have cut themselves off from the people or have got lost in religious shibboleths.

If it is just a question of a dialogue, India can always talk directly to Pakistan. Under the umbrella of the SAARC, Foreign Secretaries of the two countries are due to meet soon. There were doubts at one time whether Islamabad would talk to New Delhi on the side. The latest statement by the Pakistan Foreign Office has made it clear that New Delhi had only to indicate its desire to have a dialogue and Islamabad would respond. There are also non- official channels which New Delhi can pick up the thread from where the earlier go-betweens left off.

It looks as if the Hurriyat does not want to face peace because it has thrived on violence. It wants to avoid any discussion on the solution because it is afraid lest any concrete proposal should annoy one group or the other and shows a chink in the phalanx it has presented so far.

Still there is a way out. The Hurriyat should first have a dialogue with Mr. K. C. Pant, the interlocutor, and then seek the Government's permission to go to Pakistan. New Delhi should favourably consider granting the permission on the clear understanding that the Hurriyat is not a mediator and that it will not project its self-proclaimed role. Otherwise, why should New Delhi be a party to build up the Hurriyat which, after the official reception in Pakistan, will be taller and go up in the estimation of international opinion? Indeed, Pakistan is using the Hurriyat as its cat's paw. But then the organisation is too dependent on Islamabad in many ways.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Equal before the law
Next     : Political turmoil affecting ASEAN economies