news details |
|
|
| Centre may not be able to reopen dialogue process with motley separatists | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Jan 18: Whenever the Government of India decides to resume talks with the Kashmiri separatists it may be a more difficult exercise for New Delhi than it was for it between 2003 and 2006 when the channels of dialogue were opened with the All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC). The only reason being growing differences among the separatists and on top of it the APHC having faced yet another split over 10 days ago.
The APHC, when it was formed in 1993 comprised 27 social political and religious organizations, had emerged as a representative body of a major section of people in Kashmir. But after its split in 2003, with hardliners joined the group led by Sayeed Ali Shah Geelani, the APHC has ceased to be a forceful organization. And the second split, which it suffered after four prominent separatists, Shabir Ahmed Shah, Nayeem Ahmed Khan, Azam Inquilabi and M.Y. Naqash dissociated themselves from the group headed by Molvi Umar Farooq.
Prior to its first split the Government India had the benefit of holding talks with the executive members of the APHC. It could not be a difficult exercise in holding talks with half a dozen or more members from the Hurriyat Conference. After its latest split the separatists have become a crowd of motley characters, each character having his or her ideology, vision and aspirations.
This way it will not be an easy affair for New Delhi to hold parleys with the separatists, who with divisions in their ranks can hardly claim to represent people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Interestingly, separatists, both moderates and hardliners, have been demanding triangular talks for settling the Kashmir issue. Earlier, moderates were insistent on telling New Delhi to involve them in talks with Islamabad. Of late Sayeed Ali Shah Geelani too has come out in support of triangular talks. He has stated that the Kashmir issue cannot be settled through bilateral talks because people of Kashmir are the main stake holders in the issue.
For the sake of argument: if Delhi and Islamabad agreed to opt for triangular talks, who will represent people of Kashmir? These separatists are not sure about it. And the latest split in the APHC may make it impossible for New Delhi or even for Islamabad to hold talks with Kashmiri separatists.
And the case is similar to the community of Kashmiri Pandits. If prior to the exodus of 1990 the Pandits had two to three organizations the post displacement threw up about a dozen organizations. It was in 1990 that the displaced people were able to pin their faith on Panun Kashmir which had emerged as a premier organization of Pandits when it was formed in 1990.
Judged by the enormous membership Panun Kashmir had emerged as a genuine representative body of Kashmiri Pandits. However, this organization too suffered two major splits. First Ashwini Kumar Chrungoo quit the parent body and formed his own Panun Kashmir. This was followed by another split when a parallel Panun Kashmir was set up under the leadership of Dr Agnishekhar with the third being headed by Dr Ajay Chrungoo.
And besides this, there are a number of other organizations in Jammu, Delhi and in other state capitals and in towns. Whenever the displaced people raise their voice demanding that New Delhi hold talks with them, the Government of India is faced with one major dilemma. With whom to hold talks? Who are to be invited for parleys? And neither the Pandits nor the Government of India have the capacity to resolve this riddle.
And neither the separatists nor the Pandits have learnt a lesson from an old adage. "United we stand, divide we fall. The result is that Muslims in Kashmir and Pandits in Jammu and elsewhere suffer from these divisions and splits. The reason for these splits is not the result of any major ideological dispute but the outcome ego problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
