Kuldeep Nayar is a noted Indian Journalist who has been writing and reporting for almost sixty years now. He has been many things in his life-reporter, Editor, High Commissioner to Great Britain, Parliamentarian and  even a detainee during Indira Gandhi’s Emergency regime. He is a master at providing amplification and  clarity of events, issues and  personalities. He is an ardent supporter of peace between India and  Pakistan and lightning of candles at Wagah Border on the eve of Independence day of both these neighbours is his brain child.
With such a vast   experience and  a huge treasure of information in his possession, it is rare to find him  on a wrong foot while expressing himself in  his article “Kashmir Dilemma” published in “ Kashmir times “of 12th June and  also simultaneously  appearing in many other national and  international publications of repute. In this article he seems more to be guided by narrow and  misplaced “national interest” than any genuine concern for the plight of Kashmiris suffering enormously at the hands of his nation.
The motif and  substance  of his article is that Hurriyat should fight the elections under the Indian Constitution. By implication he wants  Hurriyat to  prove its representative Character.  He further admonishes Hurriyat for not talking to PM during his recent visit to Srinagar. In conclusion he says that Hurriyat should  ask New Delhi first to restore the ante-1952 situation where Srinagar gave it three subjects: foreign affairs, defence and communications.
I have the misfortune to differ from Mr. Nayar and I do so with a deep sense of probability that he is right. But I have cogent reasons  of my disagreement and let me take his election plea first.
I find no reason for Hurriyat to fight an election to prove it’s representative character. We have a history of Indian elections behind us  and  who better than us, sitting on Ground Zero,  know how these elections have been  stage-managed in the past to calibrate the outcome. The Government of India, itself is responsible for eroding the sanctity of these elections and it is  morally and  ethically  estopped from inviting Hurriyat to contest these. Further Elections should not be set as a condition precedent for substantive dialogue. Maharaja Hari Singh Or far that matter Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah had not fought any elections  before  annexing the fate of Kashmiris to Union of India. So why insist this condition for Hurriyat.
One more thing about this election plea. The three young  victims of recent fake encounter at Machil belonged to a village called Nadihal which falls in Rafiabad Constituency.  The election statistics reveal that 87% of this village  voted in the recently held  Assembly  elections. If you give margin for old and  disabled persons   in the constituency and  other factors like inclement weather etc, it  amounts to almost 100% voting in the village.  This means that  three young people had come out of their homes to vote in the elections against heavy odds. And the reward for participating in the elections-The death at the hands of barbarians.
The second plea of Mr. Nayar – the talks with PM Mr. Singh during his recent visit to Srinagar is also totally misplaced. Manmohan Singh  must not have taken his first step for entering into Kashmir, when announcement came that talks with Hurriyat are not on his agenda. His two cabinet Ministers, M/s Azad and  Abdullah made it clear that PM is coming to Srinagar only to attend convocation of Sher-I-Kashmir University of Agriculture Sciences and Technology and  not for any dialogue. The Chief Minister, Mr. Omar Abdullah is on record having said that Hurriyat is not on the agenda of Prime Minister’s visit to the State. PM himself announced that talks can  only be held  with persons shunning violence. This signal was directed at Gun wielding militants which  clearly and  effectively excluded Hurriyat from any agenda of dialogue.
Coming to Mr. Nayar’s plea that Hurriyat should ask for Pre-1953 status, I think this suggestion is  like putting cart  before the Horse. Mr. Nayar will remember that earlier also a resolution on these lines was passed unanimously  by the State Legislature under the stewardship of Dr. Farooq Abdullah which was summarily rejected by New-Delhi with contempt and  disdain. If New-Delhi thinks that reversion to pre-1953  position could be a genuine solution to Kashmir Problem, what prevents it from reviving that resolution or getting a fresh one passed with it’s past or present coalition partners, who together hold more than two-third majority in the state Assembly. Even Saghir Committee report, commissioned by  Centre, mandates it to grant autonomy to the state. Why wait for Hurriyat to ask for this and  spill blood of more and  more innocent Kashmiris in the meantime.
I hold no brief for Hurriyat Conference. But its demands are genuine. Be it revocation of Armed Forces Special Powers Act, release of political prisoners and  withdrawal of forces from civilian areas. This all will help build up a conducive atmosphere for dialogue. I say without any fear of contradiction that it is becoming quite counter-productive for India to keep the dialogue process in a state of suspended animation. This way they are losing ground in Kashmir.


(The author is a practicing Chartered Accountant. Feedback at amzargar1@indiatimes.com)

Lastupdate on : Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:30:00 Mecca time
Lastupdate on : Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:00:00 IST