|
Kashmir : Hurriyat springs a truce move, but snubbed by Hizbul |
 |
The Hurriyat Conference called for a comprehensive ceasefire by all groups, including militants and security forces as part of a three-point formula to resolve the Kashmir impasse. The 23-party separatist alliance of political and religious groups said the formula also envisaged trilateral talks and setting a time frame for a solution to the problem. The Hurriyat proposed that India, Pakistan and the true representatives of Kashmir could hold talks. The move for a ceasefire and trilateral talks came at a time when the US offered to facilitate talks between India and Pakistan on Kashmir coinciding with the visits of Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf to the US.
But in a strong rebuff to the Hurriyat proposal, the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir-based Jehad Council, a combination of 13 prominent militant groups, rejected the call for ceasefire. The comprehensive ceasefire was untimely and unwise step, the council said after a meeting in Muzaffarabad. The jehad council chairman Syed Salahuddin who also heads the dominant militant group Hizbul Mujahideen noted that the Hurriyat call will “cause harm to the ongoing struggle, rather than benefit their movement.” Warning the Hurriyat leaders that if any harm was caused to the ongoing struggle, they will be held responsible. The council said the struggle will continue till the ‘goal of self-determination was achieved.”
The resolution claimed that the ceasefire option had already been explored and found to be injurious rather than helpful to the “struggle”. Interestingly, the Hizbul had earlier said that the July 2000 ceasefire had helped their cause.
Proposing the ceasefire, Hurriyat Chairman Abdul Gani Bhat had stated “We can’t exist in a vacuum. We have tried our best to understand the dynamics of the situation. Negotiations have to be initiated and for that we have to create the right political atmosphere,” Bhat said the conglomerate had earlier rejected a ceasefire offer made by Hizbul Mujahideen on July 24, 2000 and termed it a decision made in haste. This time, the Hurriyat got it back in the same coin.
Admitting that the Hurriyat had been holding informal talks with the Centre to reach a negotiated settlement of the Kashmir problem, senior APHC leader Abdul Gani Lone has accused the government of scuttling the effort by going back on the modalities agreed upon by the two sides. One of the agreed terms of reference, according to Lone, was to permit the Hurriyat leaders to visit Pakistan but the government imposed its own conditions He said it was suggested to the government to take certain confidence building measures to show that it was sincere about solving the Kashmir problem. He pointed out that either the people of Kashmir will have to be consulted and their genuine aspirations fulfilled or subjugate them by force. The people of the state “alone had the right to decide their future”, according to Lone. He said it was surprising that while India and Pakistan disagreed on every facet of the Kashmir issue, they were agreed on the need to keep Kashmiris out of any dialogue. Lone also attacked the Centre and the State Government on withdrawing the security cover provided to him despite the several attacks by militants, including the one on Nov 1 at his house. The Hurriyat leader also refuted the charge of receiving hugs sums of money from across the border.
Prime Minister Vajpayee too gave a cold response to the Hurriyat Conference’s call for a “comprehensive” ceasefire in Jammu and Kashmir saying it was up to the militant outfits to decide. Vajpayee’s disillusionment with the response to the Government’s unilateral ceasefire last year is at the root of the rejection of the Hurriyat offer. Though the Government tried to show its sincerity by extending the truce by the security forces, the militant groups exploited it only to hit at the security forces by blast at the Army camps and attacks on BSF personnel. Though there was a slight drop in the civilian casualties in militant attacks during the period of ceasefire, the toll among the security forces shot up sharply making the whole exercise a futile one. There were serious reservations among the top brass of the army and the BSF about the advisability of holding back fire or stopping search operations. The different militant outfits operating independently had little control over the terrorists who went about their killing spree. After the end of the unilateral ceasefire, there had been major successes for the security forces. Following the clear directive from the Centre, particularly Home Minister Advani, for adopting a pro-active policy and hitting hard at the militant groups and gunning down mercenaries trying to cross over to India from across the border, the morale of the Army and para-military forces is up. This is reflected in the rise in the killings of infiltrators near the LoC, which nearly sent Pakistan rushing to the US fearing a full-fledged Indian attack to demolish the terrorist training camps in PoK.
The Centre’s moves to bring the Hurriyat to the discussion table had been stoutly opposed by J&K Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah who feels there was a real danger of his being sidelined in the process. As the elected leader, running the State Government, Farooq does not want any legitimacy granted to the Hurriyat, which has been branded as a totally separatist movement, with a pro-Pakistan bias. Farooq is still sticking to his larger autonomy package which has been shot down by the Centre as impractical.
In another significant development, the Supreme Court has paved the way for the J&K Government to resettle people who migrated to Pakistan from the State between March 1, 1947 and May 14, 1954. Their widows, wives and descendants can also return to the State. This followed the apex court refusal to answer a Presidential reference on the validity of the Resettlement Act 1980. The court decision caused concern in New Delhi. While the Bill allows those who return to claim their assets and properties, it is silent on what will happen to those J&K citizens who are already there. Worse, those planning to return need not show their passports or immigration papers. Opposition parties in the State feel that if implemented, the Act could have serious repercussions. It would mean uprooting tens of thousands of families and creating a 1947-type of situation, with the danger of a civil war, according to the Congress. Political observers point out the danger inherent in enlarging the scope of trans-border mischief by encouraging questionable claims to property from across the LoC. It is pointed out that the Farooq Government should be more concerned about the resettlement of thousands of Hindus who had been forced to leave their homes during the past one decade fearing the militants’ bullets.
|
