Friday, June 27, 2008

Hurriyat’s Unification Move

What next? Here lies the question of curiosity
STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

The luncheon meeting between the moderate leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and the hardliner Syed Ali Shah Geelani that took place last week is likely to provide the necessary impetus for the much-awaited unification of the All Party Hurriyat Conference. This crucial meeting comes after Mirwaiz recently called upon Ali Shah Geelani, Yasin Malik and Sajad Gani Lone from the martyrs’ graveyard to join hands to unify the Hurriyat conference that has remained a divided house ever since Geelani accused Bilal Lone of “proxy participation” in the 2002 Assembly polls and subsequently formed his own faction of the Hurriyat. Indeed, the break up had come much earlier: Shabir Shah was expelled from the Hurriyat 1998 when he had met the then American Ambassador to India Frank Wisner without taking the Hurriyat Executive into confidence. Later Yaseen Malik also left the group.
The meeting has reportedly emphasized the following issues: self-determination as the bottom-line of the Hurriyat’s struggle; support for Mian Qayoom committee which will coordinate the movement against Shri Amarnath Shrine Board (SASB) land transfer; no external proposals or road-maps would be acceptable for the resolution of the Kashmir issue; and set up a special committee comprising three members from each faction to work out a mechanism towards forging unity. The text of the agreement to meet, the meeting itself and the outcome of the meeting seems to be perfectly timed and neatly phrased.
A reading of the subtext, however, would make it clear that the unification move and its steam from here on are not so easy to sustain. There are far too many internal contradictions in this unification move of the two Hurriyat factions and ex-members of the Hurriyat. Consider the following. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has been an important moderate voice of the valley whereas Ali Shah Geelani has no such illusions of moderation. A close reading of Mirwaiz’s statements at various points of time would make it clear that he is more pro-Kashmir than anti-India, willing to talk to and reason with New Delhi, and is flexible about what self-determination entails. ‘The United States of Kashmir’ proposal, the resolution formula put forward by Mirwaiz, does not seek complete independence of Kashmir from India. He also does not regularly invoke the United Nations Resolutions even though the 1993 Hurriyat constitution is committed to it. In other words, Mirwaiz is willing to make adjustments and see reason in talking to New Delhi. What about Ali Shah Geelani? Geelani has made it clear that resolution to the Kashmir problem lies in complete independence and nothing short of that. He rejects the need to have talks with New Delhi. This leaves us with the question: can the two leaders put up with each other’s stances and ideologies? Or will one succumb to the other’s views? Who among them is willing to be flexible and what does it mean for Kashmir, Kashmiris and the peace process between the two countries and New Delhi and Srinagar?
What about Sajad Lone? Reports suggest that talks are being held between the moderate and reasonable People’s Conference Leader and the Mirwaiz faction of the Hurriyat Conference. Will Sajad Lone be comfortable with Geelani’s hard-line views at a point in time when the former’s Achievable Nationhood has been acclaimed to be one of the finest and workable proposals to resolve the Kashmir issue? The participation of Muhammad Yasin Malik, yet another Kashmir leader respected both in India and Pakistan, in this unification move also does not look likely under the present circumstances. What about the Jamaat-e-Islami and Dukhtaran-e-Millat’s Asiya Andrabi? Will they also be part of a grand coalition that seems to be in the making? While a consensus among the Kashmiri leadership and a concerted effort by them is welcome, any ‘unity’ that destroys the moderate space in Kashmir would not be a welcome development in the longer run.
While the unification move could mean going away from its moderate agenda as far as the Mirwaiz-led Hurriyat is concerned, it certainly means that New Delhi has lost another opportunity to bring peace in Jammu and Kashmir. Indian government has been a mere passive spectator during the past few years that can easily be considered as the most important period for India-Pakistan relations that witnessed positive gestures from the Kashmiri leadership in Srinagar and Pakistan, and a popular urge for normalcy and peace in the region. There were a number of opportunities for New Delhi to resolve the conflict using of the relative calm and positive peace in Srinagar and between the two countries. Going by what is happening in Kashmir now, one may have to say that New Delhi has let the opportunity to make peace in Kashmir pass by. The unification move born out of frustration – caused by the compulsive inaction by New Delhi – could also be seen as a forerunner of the changing nature of politics in Islamabad and Srinagar. One only hopes that the time for peacemaking is not yet over, though that may easily (and unfortunately) be the case.