06-23-2005, 06:52 PM
http://www.india-defence.com/node/302
The recent statement by Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf declaring the visiting leaders of the Hurriyat Conference as the true representatives of the people of Kashmir and the subsequent silence by Indian foreign ministry has once again undermined the importance of the democratically elected government in Jammu and Kashmir. The 2002 Assembly election was hailed as being free and fair by the people of the state and the international community. Many contested the election under grave threat to their lives. The Hurriyat, however, did not participate despite holding two rounds of talks with former Home Minister L K Advani. Municipal elections were successfully conducted this year after 27 years, ushering a positive change in the peoples' attitude towards the state, especially in urban areas where people are increasingly taking part in governance.
Today, there is a three tier representative structure in J&K as in some of the other states - panchayats, municipalities and legislative assemblies. These institutions of governance have surprisingly stayed intact in spite of the militant threat. Hundreds of political workers were killed and continue to be killed for showing faith in Indian democracy. By maintaining silence over Musharraf's statements and by negating the credibility of the 2002 elections, the Kashmiri phrase of "rolling back the carpet to its original position" is being given a true ring by the Indian government. It is true that Hurriyat has a presence in some pockets of the Valley, but to maintain that it alone can participate in the talks with Pakistan as the sole representatives of the people is akin to shooting an arrow in the dark. This is all the more crucial because the Hizbul chief Sala-ud-din has reportedly rejected the Hurriyat's offer of bringing down offensive operations in Kashmir.
Apart from the Kashmir Valley, the Jammu region - which consists of six districts out of the fourteen - has also equally borne the brunt of terrorism, especially in the border districts of Rajouri, Poonch and Doda (which borders Chhamba district in Himachal Pradesh). Any dialogue on Kashmir and the resultant solution should be drawn by keeping in mind the emotions and aspirations of the people of these three regions and after consulting their democratically elected representatives. Two Ladakhi districts - Leh and Kargil - already have a semi-autonomous administrative structure because they are governed by their respective Hill Development Councils.
The Hurriyat Conference, which was initially a conglomerate of 27 political parties and terrorist groups, is now a divided house. The division between the moderate faction led by Moulvi Omar Farooq and the hard-line faction led by Geelani has weakened the Hurriayat's credibility. Geelani, till recently was drawing pension from the J&K exchequer as an ex-member of the J&K Assembly and had also taken an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the state (J&K has a Constitution of its own that came into force on 26 January, 1957).
More importantly, the blame game between India and Pakistan with regard to the cross over of Hurriyat leaders into Pakistan without valid documents is a serious matter that touches upon not only the sovereignty of India, but also brings to light the disregard that Pakistan has shown to the January 6 joint statement. On the one hand the chairman of J&K People's League Shabir Shah's application for travel to PoK was rejected because he listed Kashmiri as his nationality, but on the other hand the very concept of nationality and international transit laws were disregarded by Hurriyat leaders when they crossed into Pakistan without passports and visas.
Again, the comments of JKLF chairman Yasin Malik in PoK that he had clandestinely crossed over to Pakistan eight times in the past and terming his forays as 'sheer romanticism' should not be taken in a lighter vein. Malik's gratitude towards Pakistan Information Minister Sheikh Rashid for being the patron of militant training camps in Rawalpindi in the early nineties and conformation of the same by former Pakistan Army Chief Mirza Aslam Beg casts a shadow of doubt over Sheikh Rashid's role in the ongoing peace process.
Former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's concern over these developments and his charge that India's soft posture is making the peace process Kashmir-centric is a timely warning. Malik's statements are no less than sedition and cannot be brought under the gambit of freedom of expression. Even the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution prohibits an Indian citizen to speak against a friendly country, let alone their own country. Will India still bar Sheikh Rashid to visit India on the bus from Muzaffrabad on 30 June? Or would it once again turn a blind eye to the ground realities in its garb of being a bigger partner in the peace process?
The recent statement by Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf declaring the visiting leaders of the Hurriyat Conference as the true representatives of the people of Kashmir and the subsequent silence by Indian foreign ministry has once again undermined the importance of the democratically elected government in Jammu and Kashmir. The 2002 Assembly election was hailed as being free and fair by the people of the state and the international community. Many contested the election under grave threat to their lives. The Hurriyat, however, did not participate despite holding two rounds of talks with former Home Minister L K Advani. Municipal elections were successfully conducted this year after 27 years, ushering a positive change in the peoples' attitude towards the state, especially in urban areas where people are increasingly taking part in governance.
Today, there is a three tier representative structure in J&K as in some of the other states - panchayats, municipalities and legislative assemblies. These institutions of governance have surprisingly stayed intact in spite of the militant threat. Hundreds of political workers were killed and continue to be killed for showing faith in Indian democracy. By maintaining silence over Musharraf's statements and by negating the credibility of the 2002 elections, the Kashmiri phrase of "rolling back the carpet to its original position" is being given a true ring by the Indian government. It is true that Hurriyat has a presence in some pockets of the Valley, but to maintain that it alone can participate in the talks with Pakistan as the sole representatives of the people is akin to shooting an arrow in the dark. This is all the more crucial because the Hizbul chief Sala-ud-din has reportedly rejected the Hurriyat's offer of bringing down offensive operations in Kashmir.
Apart from the Kashmir Valley, the Jammu region - which consists of six districts out of the fourteen - has also equally borne the brunt of terrorism, especially in the border districts of Rajouri, Poonch and Doda (which borders Chhamba district in Himachal Pradesh). Any dialogue on Kashmir and the resultant solution should be drawn by keeping in mind the emotions and aspirations of the people of these three regions and after consulting their democratically elected representatives. Two Ladakhi districts - Leh and Kargil - already have a semi-autonomous administrative structure because they are governed by their respective Hill Development Councils.
The Hurriyat Conference, which was initially a conglomerate of 27 political parties and terrorist groups, is now a divided house. The division between the moderate faction led by Moulvi Omar Farooq and the hard-line faction led by Geelani has weakened the Hurriayat's credibility. Geelani, till recently was drawing pension from the J&K exchequer as an ex-member of the J&K Assembly and had also taken an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the state (J&K has a Constitution of its own that came into force on 26 January, 1957).
More importantly, the blame game between India and Pakistan with regard to the cross over of Hurriyat leaders into Pakistan without valid documents is a serious matter that touches upon not only the sovereignty of India, but also brings to light the disregard that Pakistan has shown to the January 6 joint statement. On the one hand the chairman of J&K People's League Shabir Shah's application for travel to PoK was rejected because he listed Kashmiri as his nationality, but on the other hand the very concept of nationality and international transit laws were disregarded by Hurriyat leaders when they crossed into Pakistan without passports and visas.
Again, the comments of JKLF chairman Yasin Malik in PoK that he had clandestinely crossed over to Pakistan eight times in the past and terming his forays as 'sheer romanticism' should not be taken in a lighter vein. Malik's gratitude towards Pakistan Information Minister Sheikh Rashid for being the patron of militant training camps in Rawalpindi in the early nineties and conformation of the same by former Pakistan Army Chief Mirza Aslam Beg casts a shadow of doubt over Sheikh Rashid's role in the ongoing peace process.
Former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's concern over these developments and his charge that India's soft posture is making the peace process Kashmir-centric is a timely warning. Malik's statements are no less than sedition and cannot be brought under the gambit of freedom of expression. Even the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution prohibits an Indian citizen to speak against a friendly country, let alone their own country. Will India still bar Sheikh Rashid to visit India on the bus from Muzaffrabad on 30 June? Or would it once again turn a blind eye to the ground realities in its garb of being a bigger partner in the peace process?