Introduction: Gun no longer provides legitimacy
One of the problems with the Hurriyat is that it rarely gets to speak in one voice. Syed Ali Shah Geelani of the Jamat started off by saying that a dialogue should be held under the auspices of the United Nations, mentioning in passing that the historical background and the UN resolutions should be kept in mind. He knows that no Indian leadership will hold a dialogue with anybody under such conditions, the ‘statement is intended to anticipate any accusations made against the Hurriyat and the militant movement in general that it turns away from political solutions and is wedded to the jehadi cause. The same post-11 September apprehension is found in a statement made by Hurriyat chairman Abdul Ghani Bhat on television to the effect that the gun had done its job and the time had come for politicians like him to finish whatever remains to be finished, that is, everything. A Hurriyat delegation was refused entry by three Western missions in the capital in October and again this month. They probably realise that a change in rhetoric has become imperative, the word jehad now has sinister connotations worldwide and having let Pakistan’s minions take over the militant cause completely in the Kashmir valley, a reduction in proximity to such elements is called for. Geelani also says that if Kashmiris are willing to go with India, he has no problems, perhaps also because he knows nobody is taking him seriously-
The clear indication is that jehad
is a dirty word, even in Pakistan, where the money and guns come from and
it would not be prudent to pursue that line of business for the moment.
What next? Well, says Abdul Ghani Lone, who got shot some time back and
is accused by his own militant wing of having siphoned off Rs 4.5 crores
obtained from Pakistan, the Hurriyat may consider contesting the next assembly
elections. This is yet another inconsequential proposal, unless we are
in for something dramatic, although the exercise will be interesting for
everyone, above all the Government of India, who wants to know what the
Hurriyat is really worth on the ground. The gun no longer provides legitimacy
to the cause, something else must be found, why not an election? Only problem
is that the Hurriyat is not going to actually run a government in Srinagar,
if it gets that far, it will use that to subvert the constitution and demonstrate
that India does not really tolerate democracy in Kashmir, it’s just an
eyewash. That is, if it gets a majority on its own. If it doesn’t, it can
always accuse the state apparatus of fixing the playing field against it,
but it will be a letdown nevertheless in front of its supporters. Will
it take that risk?