The tough talk begins

How Delhi’s bluntness has sharpened the Hurriyat hardline.

Written by Muzamil Jaleel | Published:September 1, 2014 12:49 am
geelani The Hurriyat faction led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who has consistently suspected the motives behind Delhi’s overtures for dialogue, is vindicated.

When Delhi decided to suspend foreign secretary-level talks with Islamabad, taking exception to the Pakistan high commissioner meeting Kashmiri separatist leaders, it brought a divided and exhausted Hurriyat back into relevance in Kashmir. Also significant is the way the Centre’s recent move has been viewed in Kashmir. This shift in strategy has strengthened the belief that Delhi only aims to strengthen the status quo; its political overtures to the separatists and the political mainstream in Kashmir were just meant to calm tempers and buy time in the hope that the “Kashmir problem” would eventually vanish.

The Modi government has cut through the diplomatic sweet talk favoured by the previous dispensation, baring the stark contours of Delhi’s real policy. As a result, both the National Conference and the People’s Democratic Party are cornered, since there seems to be no space for their political remedies for the Kashmir dispute. The Hurriyat faction led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who has consistently suspected the motives behind Delhi’s overtures for dialogue, is vindicated. And in the disagreement between the separatist factions, the scales have been tipped. The moderates have been proved wrong. The Hurriyat now finds itself at a crossroads. There is growing public pressure in Kashmir for the various factions to unite and start a new phase of resistance, instead of continuing with unproductive dialogue. Perhaps the past holds a key to this disillusionment with dialogue.

The All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) was set up on July 31,1993. When Mirwaiz Umar Farooq was made the first chairman of the newly stitched coalition of 23 political and religious parties in Kashmir, he was 20. From the beginning, the Hurriyat was a mix of ideologies and personalities, with contradictions that would regularly surface in public. The only thing binding the various strands of this political formation was its objective. The Hurriyat constitution adopted in 1993 stated that the objective was to wage a peaceful struggle to secure right to self-determination under the UN charter and resolutions on J&K. To accommodate rival political ideologies, it included the right to independence under the rubric of self-determination and agreed to strive towards an “alternative negotiated settlement” between all three parties to the Kashmir dispute — India, Pakistan and people of the Jammu and Kashmir.

The formation of this coalition was important because it gave the separatist struggle a political face. At the time, the militant movement was the major challenge for the Centre and the lack of a political platform representing the separatists was Delhi’s main alibi for not engaging in talks. But once the Hurriyat was formed, Delhi wasn’t ready to talk outside the ambit of the Constitution — an insistence that has broadly informed its every engagement on Kashmir ever since. As brutal counter insurgency operations were launched to curb militants, Delhi started to draw the NC back to the electoral process. Though the NC initially stayed away from polls, it participated in the 1996 assembly elections, after then Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao promised the “sky is the limit” for a resolution on Kashmir.

The NC contested on its autonomy plank and, though there were allegations of coercion and rigging, managed an overwhelming majority. Even as the conduct of an assembly election with the NC’s participation became Delhi’s de facto solution for Kashmir, the Centre unilaterally binned the NC’s autonomy resolution, even after the J&K assembly had passed it with a two-thirds majority.

Meanwhile, senior separatist leaders Yasin Malik and Shabir Shah, both released from jail in 1994, had decided to pursue a peaceful solution to the Kashmir dispute. Indeed, Shah had begun a process to reach out to minorities across the state to broaden the scope of a political solution. There was no response from the government. Malik declared a unilateral ceasefire, abandoned militancy and adopted Gandhian non-violence. Despite the JKLF giving up arms, scores of Malik’s colleagues were killed. In 2007, Malik had even launched a statewide door-to-door campaign, the “Safr-e-Azadi (Journey for Freedom)”, to mobilise support for the Indo-Pak peace process and create space for Kashmiri voices in the dialogue. There was no response.

A constituent member’s “proxy participation” in the 2002 assembly polls was the provocation for the Hurriyat split in 2003, but the issue of dialogue with Delhi was always the sticking point within the conglomerate. While Geelani insisted on tripartite talks, the Mirwaiz group initiated direct dialogue with the Vajpayee government. The talks yielded no results. Malik and Shah had stayed neutral during the split. While Shah met the Centre’s interlocutor, Yasin too held talks with Delhi. Again, no results. Dialogue seemed to have become an end in itself rather than a means towards a resolution. Meanwhile, Pakistan under Pervez Musharraf had scaled down its position. Islamabad no longer insisted on the UN resolutions and even sidelined Geelani, the strongest pro-Pakistan voice among the separatists. Still no result.

To  pursue dialogue with Delhi, the moderates had to pay a heavy price. First, Hurriyat leader Abdul Gani Lone and then Mirwaiz’s uncle, Maulvi Mushtaq Ahmad, were killed. There was also an assassination attempt on Fazal Haq Qureshi, another pro-dialogue leader. When Modi came to power, Mirwaiz had hoped the new government would take its cue from Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and his credo of “insaniyat”, and keep up the dialogue. But this time, the Modi government has abandoned even the pretence of being open to unconditional dialogue.

Now that the gloves are off, it has only strengthened a growing conviction in Kashmir: the approach adopted by moderates for more than a decade was always flawed. The impression that Delhi had used dialogue merely to strengthen the status quo is also reinforced by the progress — or lack of it — in negotiations between Delhi and mainstream parties in Kashmir that didn’t question a solution within the bounds of the Indian Constitution. Never mind entertaining political demands like the NC’s resolution for the restoration of autonomy or the PDP’s ambitious self-rule proposal, Delhi did not even accept smaller administrative recommendations by its own working groups, who sought the repeal of draconian laws like the AFSPA. The report compiled by the most recent group of Central interlocutors wasn’t even acknowledged.

With the BJP joining the electoral battle for the J&K assembly elections this year, the situation has taken a new turn. For more than a decade, government formation in J&K was about the Congress choosing an alliance partner. It swung between archrivals the NC and PDP, and managed to stay in government. The state’s politics could be transformed if the BJP now displaces the Congress from Jammu and garners a few seats in the Valley, where its boycott of talks with Pakistan and its rebuff to the Hurriyat may win it votes among migrant Kashmiri Pandits. Apart from a polarisation along religious lines, this redrawing of the political map will make both the NC and the PDP irrelevant in the state. It could also force the Hurriyat moderates to revise their decade-long stance and push for a union with the Geelani faction in order to survive. With the sugar-coating gone from Delhi’s Kashmir policy, the faultlines are clear. There will be no room for the ambiguous middle ground created through the PDP’s soft separatism, the NC’s demand for autonomy and the dialogue mantra of the Hurriyat moderates. It’s going to be a direct battle between the narratives of integration and azadi.

muzamil.jaleel@expressindia.com

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

  1. M
    manohar sharma
    Sep 2, 2014 at 3:13 am
    The Hurriyat and the separatist want Kashmir valley to go to satan.they have no concern for any thing else.Its only in India that such people are not only tolerated but also facilitated.Other countries will call them traitors and treat them as such.The people of India that includes from all of J&K are paying heavy price for this stupidity started by Nehru
    Reply
    1. M
      M M
      Sep 3, 2014 at 6:12 am
      Is J&K is a secular state? The Consution of J&K is silent on this issue. when it approved by the Indian Parliament, no one seems to have raised the issue, why?
      Reply
      1. M
        M M
        Sep 3, 2014 at 9:53 am
        The then Raja of J&K had signed the accession doent on certain conditions for providing security to the people of J&K. It is not clear as to why i) the state was not merged like the rest of princely states? ii) the territory under stan control could not be acquired as per the accession agreement when all the time India was victorious? How long the people of J&K, particularly the migrants and displaced persons have to live such a miserable life? Is it true that abrogation of article 370 would lead to disintegration with India rather than Integration with India? What is the process for doing it? Is it also true that Indus Water treaty was mediated by the world bank because India and stan failed to mutually resolve the dispute? What is the guarantee that UN will not interfere again if we fail to sustain the dialogue process to resolve the Kashmir dispute? Can any one enlighten us on these issues please?
        Reply
        1. M
          M M
          Sep 2, 2014 at 12:44 pm
          The writer has made a perceptive analysis of the present stalemate between India and stan. It is easier to find fault-lines but difficult to outline the way forward for resolution of Kashmir imbroglio. The Consution of India is based on 'secular' ideals whereas there is no mention of secular word in the Consution of J&K. It is not understandable how the state of J&K could effectively be integrated and merged with India, like the other 28 states of India? Failure of India and stan to resolve the K issue in the last six decades seem to indicate that third party mediation would be inevitable as had happened in resolving water dispute between the two country. The ongoing skirmishes on boarders/LOC and escalation of tensions between the two countries, which may also lead to peace and stability in the region clearly hint at undesirable options for India.
          Reply
          1. A
            Arun
            Sep 2, 2014 at 4:19 pm
            Painting the Hurriyat - any of them - as moderates and Modi as the extremist, what else can one expect of a communal reporter like Muzamil Jaleel? He's scared for his life and wouldn't dare speak against separatists. All the Hurriyat want is Islam in a dominant position. Jaleel acts as if the Hurriyat and the separatist Muslims have some kind of moral authority. If they ever had it, they lost it when they resorted to violence and their lip service to the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in the valley.No significant power in the world, the EU, nor the US, will have any truck with the Hurriyat. Yes, they do have their sympathizers in the US Dept of State, but they're a dying breed, probably literally. Their only supporters, the stupid and pretentious stan Foreign Service is living in a make believe world, pretending like they care for the Kashmiri. stan itself is teetering on the brink of disaster. It is time the Hurriyat accepted the secular Indian consution and moved on. But the Hurriyat want to be relevant, they cannot do that. Secularism has power, Mr. Jaleel, power that you won't understand.
            Reply
            1. B
              Barry Mishra
              Sep 1, 2014 at 5:18 am
              correct, this guy is bised.Kashmiris have abright future in INdia, not in stan which is falling apart at the shin. get rid of 360 make kasmiris an intrgral part of India.
              Reply
              1. B
                B.D.SINGH
                Sep 1, 2014 at 2:45 pm
                India knows fully well that Huriyat is supporter of stani line. So there is no point in talking to separately. As regards disturbances, they are always indulging it it in different forms like stone pelting etc.
                Reply
                1. S
                  Sudeep Kanjilal
                  Sep 1, 2014 at 5:00 pm
                  Please try that stunt - make my day
                  Reply
                  1. S
                    Sudeep Kanjilal
                    Sep 1, 2014 at 4:58 pm
                    Time to liberate Sindh, Balochistan and Pakhnustan
                    Reply
                    1. K
                      Kolsat
                      Sep 1, 2014 at 12:25 pm
                      The author writes that two separatist leaders were killed but does not tell us who were the killers. By not saying who the killers were he insinuates that Indian government was involved. If he mentions the killings he should say that killers have been apprehended and they were or that the killeres have not been found. The stani ambador to India should not have met with the Sparatists because his hosts, the Indian government, has asked him not to meet them. This is serious breach of protocol. He could do this because he knows Indian Muslims will blame Indian government and this waht Mr. Jaleel has done.
                      Reply
                      1. D
                        Divya Jain
                        Sep 1, 2014 at 9:57 am
                        Seems like a necessary start to cleaning a festering wound.. bare the fault lines and then resolve the issue.
                        Reply
                        1. Y
                          Yeshwant Pande
                          Sep 1, 2014 at 12:06 pm
                          Simply suspending talk won't help. GOI need to go on more offensive, stop border trade which is also route for arms smuggling, shut down Samzota express, shut down drama at Wagah border and initiate process of splitting Jammu and Laddakh. Lato ke Bhoot, baton se nahi manate.
                          Reply
                          1. N
                            namah
                            Sep 2, 2014 at 4:05 am
                            ...and the point you are trying to make is??? (other than the fact that you watch too much TV)
                            Reply
                            1. N
                              namah
                              Aug 31, 2014 at 8:05 pm
                              There will never be any soft lines of autonomy in Kashmir. For too long the common Indian outside Kashmir has been getting a daily dose of how 'neglected' Kashmiris are, how 'cuted' they have been, and how the central govt destro their way of life. Enter (or rather exit) the Kashmiri Pandit. Now folks are saying: You know what, I give a rat's about this independence ! Let there be an all out war, but lets solve this problem once and for all.My suggestion to my kashmiri brethren: Forget Azaadi. Forget soft borders. Study hard. Oppose AFSPA in Kashmir. India will never give up Kashmir. They have learnt the lesson of stan. Did its creation create long term peace? Are hindu muslim riots a historical artifact? Creation of azaad kashmir is a germ of an idea planted by stan in vulnerable muslim minds. get rid of it. make something of your life.Don't believe me? Go and find out about the muhajir community in stan. You will have your answer.
                              Reply
                              1. N
                                namah
                                Sep 2, 2014 at 4:12 am
                                conditions like: killing kashmiri pandits? driving them out of the valley? training in stan to attack india?times change, people change, realities change. 300 years from now will there be an india? kashmir? or stan? I cannot say. Then where is the logic of article 370's permanence?facts of life: stan was created because indian freedom fighters were too exhausted for a civil war. its creation did nothing for either india or the muslims there (except for the elite punjabis and sindhis).
                                Reply
                                1. P
                                  PK
                                  Sep 1, 2014 at 7:27 am
                                  When Hurriyat leaders were not hardliner?? do not forget their double speak and shoddy characters. Money laundering, personnel games - who they are and who they represent in J & K???
                                  Reply
                                  1. F
                                    foolonthehill
                                    Sep 1, 2014 at 5:54 am
                                    Nehru had already gifted a part of Kashmir (pok) in" 47 ,let the people who don't want to live with India migrate to that part... kashmir"s existence predates islam by 1000 years ...it should not be looked through the prism of islam.The govt of India should work towards the imilation of J&K asap If we want to be truly secular and plural society.
                                    Reply
                                    1. J
                                      jatindra deo
                                      Sep 1, 2014 at 10:40 am
                                      Get the Kashmiri pandits settled in kashmir ,win kashmir elections ,revoke 370 ,bring in huge investments and high end infrastructure and consequently jobs ,quadruple surveillance and defense investment with high-tech gadgetry and make sure not a fly moves without being detected ,monitor the hawala network and hammer them into oblivion ....Thats it problem solved ...To the hurriyat brigade ..fall in line else get fling-ed across the border .
                                      Reply
                                      1. J
                                        Jibran
                                        Sep 1, 2014 at 3:01 pm
                                        I think ou need to read history before making any comments about removal of 370. Revocation of 370 means complete dissociation of jammu and kashmir from India. This may not sound good but this is how it is because J and K never merged with India like other princely states but only acceeded to India based on certain conditions which were never ho oured by India.
                                        Reply
                                        1. G
                                          Gangu true
                                          Sep 1, 2014 at 3:03 am
                                          Omarjee advises talks to a government who cannot control its own illegal combatants, such talks are meaningless. Similarly, talks with that Nation of uncontrolled illegal combatants under a threat of unrest by those parties is also meaningless. Outcome of such talks will never be honored by your favorites because they are not talking in "good Islamic faith" and to a "competent party".
                                          Reply
                                          1. J
                                            Jnana Samaaj
                                            Sep 1, 2014 at 11:22 am
                                            If the separatists can be kept in check, stan can be kept in check. Simple as that.
                                            Reply
                                            1. Load More Comments