No force on earth can unite them; they are born to remain divided. This was my gut reaction on Friday afternoon while walking down two fussiest and busiest streets in Srinagar.  As I pushed my way through these streets questions started crowding my cranium as traffic jams on these two streets.I started looking for answers for these questions, not all but only those that repeatedly echoed in my mind- that hammered my mind.

Street One, 2.15 PM: Some one thousand youth after saying their Friday prayers started a procession from Maisuma. The procession was led by Chairman Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, Muhammad Yasin Malik. The young men bubbling with enthusiasm were shouting full throat slogans, demanding ‘freedom’, revocation of Armed Forces Special Powers Act, (AFSPA) and stopping ‘genocide of youth’.  The procession was first of a series of its district wise program of courting arrest in support of demand for revoking AFSPA, arresting and killing of youth. It was for the first time in the recent history of the state when besides the supporters of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, some prominent members of civil society that included some medicos and lawyers also courted arrest. I am not to debate here if courting arrest in support of ‘freedom’ and other demands was making history or repeating history.  I am not to discuss if it is ‘Gandhian’ way of offering resistance or has its origin in some other ‘resistance’ movements in the World. It is a historical fact that past seventy nine history of political struggle of Jammu and Kashmir is replete with instances with such instances. In the past also political workers courted arrest   in support of major political demands including holding of a plebiscite in the state as envisaged in different resolutions passed by the United Nation’s Security Council on Jammu and Kashmir. Some twenty people raising slogans courted themselves for arrest and the whole affair ended peacefully within fifteen minutes. In a way it was making a history as some prominent members of the civil society courted arrest against human rights violations for the first time.

Street No2, 2.35 PM: The All Parties Hurriyat Conference (G) had organized a one hour sit-in protest against the ‘systematic genocide of youth’, ‘fake encounters’, revocation of armed forces special powers act and in support of ‘right to self-determination’ as promised by India, Pakistan and comity of nations to 15 million people of Jammu and Kashmir state. The sit-in protest by APHC (G) was held barely a furlong away from clock tower – venue of JKLF demonstration. A couple of thousand of ‘emotionally involved’ youth   had gathered at the APHC venue. Syed Ali Shah Geelani in his speech besides raising the issues like killing of youth, fake encounters and AFSPA that have been echoing at all political rallies irrespective of the political beliefs of the organizers in his speech made some pertinent points with regard to talks about ‘irrelevant borders and working on creative solutions’.

Street No 3, Thursday 2 PM: The APHC (M) executive council members with a dozen and odd of its workers led by its Chairman Molvi Umar Farooq wants present a memorandum at the blue gate of United Nations Military Observers Group. The memorandum demands abrogation of the AFSPA, seeking UN intervention for stopping killing of students and youth and ending of fake encounters.

Looking in right perspective at the three rallies, held at three different venues and organized by three different organizations, I found a common thread passing through all the three rallies. I discovered despite their disbelieving in each other, nursing grouse against each other and suffering from credibility crisis their exists bonds of commonality with all these organizations. Looking at the demands raised by these apparently discordant groups I started believing that there is a scope for them to work in tandem for articulating their concerns and achieving their desired goals for improving human rights situation in the state. The question remains, who can perform the job of  bringing of them together at least on the points that I found common in the three rallies. Trying to address this question I returned to my desk for writing this column with more questions than answers:

• In 1993, discordant political organizations with diverse political beliefs had agreed upon coming under one umbrella organization APHC. To what purpose was the multiparty combine born and who had played a role in its birth.

•  Notwithstanding egocentricities of its leaders, how did the combine survive some eight and odd years.

• Did the multi-party combine not crumble but disintegrate under the weight of ideological contradictions or it was engineered from outside.

•  History did throw up situations for the disintegrated combine to forging unity but it not only failed to rise to the occasions but also fritted away the ripe opportunities- history has thrown up yet another opportunity to these leaders to work together for articulating public concerns with one voice about the situation as obtains in the state. The question that still remains can they rise to the occasion.

Knowing fully well idiosyncrasies of our leadership and seventy nine years history of our political struggle, I am often amazed what caused the miracle of bringing together discordant political groups together in 1993 and launching of the APHC. There are many versions about it. One, version that dominated the media at the time of its birth was that the United States was driving force behind forging unity amongst Kashmir leaders. The name of Rabin Raphel, who was then secretary political affairs in US Embassy at New Delhi and later Assistant Secretary of State, was often mentioned in New Delhi as the lady behind what was described giving ‘political voice Kashmir militancy.’ There was yet another version that some New Delhi political ideologues, human rights activists and agencies were interested in forging unity in Kashmir leaders for opening a dialogue with Kashmir leaders for ending ‘insurgency in the state’ and initiating a political process.
There are sufficient evidences that despite major events like Hazratbal siege overtaking the political situation the APHC directly or indirectly got engaged with a dialogue with New Delhi immediately after its birth. I cannot say if the conglomerate had taken its General Council into confidence but there is no evidence to suggest that there was any disagreement in its executive about dialogue with New Delhi. The conglomerate from time to time authorized different chairmen to talk to the ‘envoys’ from New Delhi and who in turn shared it with the executive. I don’t know if the APHC has any recorded notes about the meetings it has been having with New Delhi or not but if going by the versions of various chairmen I have talked to the discussions mostly revolved around human rights situation in the state and including the APHC in the process of dialogue between Islamabad and New Delhi. 
 I for one don’t see the reason for conglomerate dividing on the question of talking to New Delhi. But I see the trust deficit that loomed large on this multi-party combine   wedging through it. The APHC suffered first cracks in 1996, when the then US Ambassador in New Delhi Frank Wisner wanted it to partake in the election. Shabir Ahmed Shah was its first causality- who was expelled from the combine for meeting Wisner in violation of the Conglomerate decision. The combine suffered major  erosion when it failed to arrive at a consensus on the question of electing a chairman after end of Syed Ali Geelani’s term as Chairman. In this election Abdul Gani Bhat won by four votes as against three by Abdul Gani Lone- there are lots of stories how and why Lone failed to be the Chairman of the conglomerate. It in fact was division on the question of boycotting 2002 elections that was of great diplomatic significance for New Delhi it wanted to send a message to the world that Kashmiri were free to exercise their choice and had a right to vote. These elections undoubtedly provided a diplomatic mileage to New Delhi but brought a vertical divide in the APHC.

The history testifies that in the post 2002 elections scenario Pakistan’s support to the combine oscillated between the two factions, sometimes it supported APHC led by Geelani and sometimes it fondled Mirwaiz faction. Some political observers avowedly hold policies of ‘favor and disfavor’ by   some members in Pakistan establishment responsible for widening the divide between two factions of the Hurriyat conglomerate. The divide undoubtedly deepened over supporting ‘Four Point Musharraf’ formula.

 Now when most of the factors that had caused the divide in the conglomerate have died their natural death- the question that haunts me can leaders join hands at least for pressing its demands for improving human rights situation in the state?

(Comment at zahidgm@greaterkashmir.com)

Lastupdate on : Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:30:00 Mecca time
Lastupdate on : Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Mon, 21 Jun 2010 00:00:00 IST