Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, chairman Muhammad Yasin Malik on Friday 21 May appealed the people to remain committed to the struggle and not to be swayed by the hollow slogans of mainstream political parties. He asserted that the international community has realized the importance of solving Kashmir issue in order to bring peace and stability to the region. The veracity of this view point needs to be examined.
On the same day while commemorating the 20th death anniversary of late Mirwaiz Moulvi Farooq and 8th death anniversary of late Abdul Gani Lone, NC leader and Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ali Muhammad Sagar has urged both factions of Hurriyat, Yasin Malik and Peoples Democratic Party, that they have to evolve a ‘consensus’ over Kashmir issue. He has said “It is the question of one crore 20 lakh people including Jammu and Ladakh regions. Stubbornness is no solution”.
At one point in the early 1990s Syed Ali Geelani. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Shabir Shah, Yasin Malik in particular and many others in general were all part of APHC and committed to a political agenda adopted on 31 July 1993. An invitation by NC in May 2010 to all these and other leaders (PDP) to evolve a consensus on Kashmir is a serious political statement and it should not be allowed to go waste as a ‘hollow slogan’. JKLF leaders have felt the need to advise the people that “there is need to safeguard these sacrifices. The day isn’t far when Kashmiris will get freedom”. The leaders want the people to continue to stand at guard and possibly do nothing on their part. They have failed to explain the manner and content of the ‘freedom’ and how far they see it from Srinagar, Jammu, Muzaffarabad and Gilgit is not clear.
Is there a need for a dialogue among Separatists and Mainstream political parties or not, is the moot question. Hurriyat leaders of present or previous style and the mainstream politicians should not walk away from their common reference to each other and merge into their respective India and Pakistan references altogether. The present and future historian would not err to conclude that these political leaders worked hard to keep their India-Pakistan references and in this regard only made hollow statements to remain visible for their respective corners. As suggested by NC leader they should seek to evolve common consensus in the best interests of their people.
National Conference, PDP, Congress, CPI (M) or any other mainstream political party has a serious role to play. NC has made a valuable contribution at the United Nations in February 1948 and has made an additional contribution by differentiating that Government of Kashmir has signed an Instrument of Accession and not Instrument of Merger with the government of India. Hurriyat or other such parties outside this fold and opposed to mainstream political parties have failed to make a strong case to convince us that it was safe to rely upon their understanding of Kashmir case. An overwhelming Pakistan and at times an Indian reference without any due regard for the fact that they have to advance the best interests of the people of Jammu and Kashmir (all people) as equal people under the principle of self determination is very dangerous.
Unless the two factions of Hurriyat, JKLF and other parties within their thinking vicinity have given up the UN character of the right of self determination of the people of Kashmir, it has to be accepted that UN Resolutions on Kashmir don’t accept every Tom, Dick and Harry as a leader. These resolutions have set a test of ‘Principality’ for a leader. National Conference and Muslim Conference have already been referenced in these Resolutions as representative parties. It does not however, mean that the test of ‘principality’ has been sealed in any manner at that point in history.
Government of Jammu and Kashmir has a crucial role because it has been the government that entered into a two bilateral agreements, first with Pakistan and then with India. NC has continued to maintain that
Accession is provisional and has to be ratified. Government of India too has accepted at the UN Security Council that the accession of 27 October 1947 was provisional and remained subject to a final ratification or rejection by the people of Kashmir.
Until a final determination on the question of this provisional accession with either India or Pakistan and Independence is obtained, it is the duty of the government of Kashmir that it makes sure that government of India continues to honour the three features of accession agreement, namely, protection of ‘life’, ‘honour’ and ‘property’. Indian army has been admitted into the territories of the State to ensure the protection of ‘life’, ‘honour’ and ‘property’. Some may feel free to argue and waste time that there is no accession. But the best way around it is to put the terms of the agreement to test and regain the initiative as a party in the agreement. Government of Jammu and Kashmir could even consider to pull out of this agreement as well.
It is not only the ‘Separatist’ camp but even the various governments in Pakistan have been hurting the Kashmir case. Majority of our leaders in Separatist camp have a poor and unreliable understanding of Kashmir case. On the one hand they seek a resolution in accordance with UN Resolutions on Kashmir and on the other they don’t seem to have any clue in regard to the role of the government of Jammu and Kashmir in arranging and concluding the process of ‘Plebiscite’ in Kashmir under these UN Resolutions.
It is right time that the ‘Separatist’ camp walks a step away from ‘hollow slogans’ and takes up the offer of NC leader to start building a consensus on the basics of Kashmir case. Government of Pakistan and government of India need not feel threatened about this desire among the leaders of Kashmir. The need to build a consensus is embedded in UN Resolutions on Kashmir. The best and enduring reference for any Kashmiri leader should be the best interests of the people of Kashmir and not a disproportionate lunge towards India or Pakistan. It is also the right time that government of Kashmir starts regaining its initiatives as party to two separate agreements of August and October 1947 with the governments of Pakistan and India. It should seek to enforce its role under UNCIP Resolutions as well.
Author is London based Secretary General of JKCHR – NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations. Email dr-nazirgilani@jkchr.com
On the same day while commemorating the 20th death anniversary of late Mirwaiz Moulvi Farooq and 8th death anniversary of late Abdul Gani Lone, NC leader and Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ali Muhammad Sagar has urged both factions of Hurriyat, Yasin Malik and Peoples Democratic Party, that they have to evolve a ‘consensus’ over Kashmir issue. He has said “It is the question of one crore 20 lakh people including Jammu and Ladakh regions. Stubbornness is no solution”.
At one point in the early 1990s Syed Ali Geelani. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Shabir Shah, Yasin Malik in particular and many others in general were all part of APHC and committed to a political agenda adopted on 31 July 1993. An invitation by NC in May 2010 to all these and other leaders (PDP) to evolve a consensus on Kashmir is a serious political statement and it should not be allowed to go waste as a ‘hollow slogan’. JKLF leaders have felt the need to advise the people that “there is need to safeguard these sacrifices. The day isn’t far when Kashmiris will get freedom”. The leaders want the people to continue to stand at guard and possibly do nothing on their part. They have failed to explain the manner and content of the ‘freedom’ and how far they see it from Srinagar, Jammu, Muzaffarabad and Gilgit is not clear.
Is there a need for a dialogue among Separatists and Mainstream political parties or not, is the moot question. Hurriyat leaders of present or previous style and the mainstream politicians should not walk away from their common reference to each other and merge into their respective India and Pakistan references altogether. The present and future historian would not err to conclude that these political leaders worked hard to keep their India-Pakistan references and in this regard only made hollow statements to remain visible for their respective corners. As suggested by NC leader they should seek to evolve common consensus in the best interests of their people.
National Conference, PDP, Congress, CPI (M) or any other mainstream political party has a serious role to play. NC has made a valuable contribution at the United Nations in February 1948 and has made an additional contribution by differentiating that Government of Kashmir has signed an Instrument of Accession and not Instrument of Merger with the government of India. Hurriyat or other such parties outside this fold and opposed to mainstream political parties have failed to make a strong case to convince us that it was safe to rely upon their understanding of Kashmir case. An overwhelming Pakistan and at times an Indian reference without any due regard for the fact that they have to advance the best interests of the people of Jammu and Kashmir (all people) as equal people under the principle of self determination is very dangerous.
Unless the two factions of Hurriyat, JKLF and other parties within their thinking vicinity have given up the UN character of the right of self determination of the people of Kashmir, it has to be accepted that UN Resolutions on Kashmir don’t accept every Tom, Dick and Harry as a leader. These resolutions have set a test of ‘Principality’ for a leader. National Conference and Muslim Conference have already been referenced in these Resolutions as representative parties. It does not however, mean that the test of ‘principality’ has been sealed in any manner at that point in history.
Government of Jammu and Kashmir has a crucial role because it has been the government that entered into a two bilateral agreements, first with Pakistan and then with India. NC has continued to maintain that
Accession is provisional and has to be ratified. Government of India too has accepted at the UN Security Council that the accession of 27 October 1947 was provisional and remained subject to a final ratification or rejection by the people of Kashmir.
Until a final determination on the question of this provisional accession with either India or Pakistan and Independence is obtained, it is the duty of the government of Kashmir that it makes sure that government of India continues to honour the three features of accession agreement, namely, protection of ‘life’, ‘honour’ and ‘property’. Indian army has been admitted into the territories of the State to ensure the protection of ‘life’, ‘honour’ and ‘property’. Some may feel free to argue and waste time that there is no accession. But the best way around it is to put the terms of the agreement to test and regain the initiative as a party in the agreement. Government of Jammu and Kashmir could even consider to pull out of this agreement as well.
It is not only the ‘Separatist’ camp but even the various governments in Pakistan have been hurting the Kashmir case. Majority of our leaders in Separatist camp have a poor and unreliable understanding of Kashmir case. On the one hand they seek a resolution in accordance with UN Resolutions on Kashmir and on the other they don’t seem to have any clue in regard to the role of the government of Jammu and Kashmir in arranging and concluding the process of ‘Plebiscite’ in Kashmir under these UN Resolutions.
It is right time that the ‘Separatist’ camp walks a step away from ‘hollow slogans’ and takes up the offer of NC leader to start building a consensus on the basics of Kashmir case. Government of Pakistan and government of India need not feel threatened about this desire among the leaders of Kashmir. The need to build a consensus is embedded in UN Resolutions on Kashmir. The best and enduring reference for any Kashmiri leader should be the best interests of the people of Kashmir and not a disproportionate lunge towards India or Pakistan. It is also the right time that government of Kashmir starts regaining its initiatives as party to two separate agreements of August and October 1947 with the governments of Pakistan and India. It should seek to enforce its role under UNCIP Resolutions as well.
Author is London based Secretary General of JKCHR – NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations. Email dr-nazirgilani@jkchr.com
No comments:
Post a Comment