news details |
|
|
| Political future of Kashmir | | Kashmir's Political Future: Clash between Geelani and Malik-II | |
RUSTAM
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Mar 17: Yet another dissimilarity between Syed Ali Shah Geelani and the likes of Yasin Malik lies in the fact that the former has his support-base among those belonging to Jamait-e-Islami and those endorsing its sectarian ideology and the latter has his support-base among Atikaadis. In other words, while Geelani and his supporters do not really believe in shrines, Sufis and pirs, Malik and his followers who hold pirs and Sufis in high esteem and believe in shrines. Geelani, in fact, controls Jamait-e-Islam.
That means Geelani and Malik belong to two different schools of thought. The Sunday and Monday attacks of the followers of Geelani and Malik need to be viewed in this context. The lack of unity between Geelani and Yasin Malik and others of his ilk, including Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Shabir Ahmed, also needs to be viewed in this context.
It would be too much to expect that Geelani and the likes of Malik would ever join hands as they represent two different strands. It's no wonder then that certain Kashmir-based media persons have referred to the possibility of a civil war in Kashmir. Their apprehension is based on a sound logic and it can be said that Kashmir would witness serious and bloody clashes between the Jamaitis and others. Kashmir is known for such clashes.
It is significant to note that People's Democratic Party leaders, including Mufti Mohammad Sayeed and Mehbooba Mufti, also subscribe to the ideology as preached by Syed Ali Shah Geelani and United Jehad Council (UJC) chairman Syed Salahuddin. It was because of the support of the Jamait-e-Islami that the People's Democratic Party could win 19 seats in Kashmir in the last Assembly elections. Had not the Jamaitis come out in support of the Muftis, their party would have been badly routed. They supported the Muftis notwithstanding their controversial role in the diversion of the Baltal land to the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board (SASB) in May-June 2008. The reasons were obvious.
Equally important is the fact that the attitude of the Muftis towards Pakistan is more or less similar to the one the Jamait-e-Islami, Tehrik-e-Hurriyat of Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Dukhtran-e-Millat have towards Islamabad. The Jamait, the Tehrik-e-Hurriyat and Dukhtran-e-Millat all stand for the state's merger with Pakistan. The attitude of the Muftis is almost identical. The only difference is that the Muftis want to achieve their ultimate goal in stages, step-by-step. Their demands like the introduction of Pakistani currency in Jammu and Kashmir and its insistence on "supra-state measures" or on Indo-Pak joint control over Jammu and Kashmir or on sharing of sovereignty in the state and on irrelevant borders and Actual Line of Control all indicate that the attitude of the Muftis towards Pakistan is not different from the one the likes of Syed Ali Shah Geelani have towards Pakistan.
That the Muftis are not openly talking of the state's merger with Pakistan is part of their well-calculated strategy. It can be said with confidence that though the Muftis and the likes of Geelani are treading different paths, their goal is by and large the same. The roads, though diverging from each other, lead towards the same goal: State's merger with Pakistan. It would be to cross the line if one says that the Muftis, like the Geelanis, are not preaching disloyalty to the Indian state. They are preaching disloyalty in the same manner in which the Geelanis are doing.
It is not only the Muftis who subscribe to the ideology of Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Those controlling the Kashmir High Court Bar Association also hold the similar views. In fact, the Kashmir High Court Bar Association has been under the complete control of Syed Ali Shah Geelani since long.
All this should lead one to conclude that the Kashmiri Muslim leadership is divided into two main groups, one which wants the state's merger with Pakistan and other which wants independence for the state. One which doesn't care for the implications of the state's merger with Pakistan or one which doesn't mind the policy of persecution being implemented by Islamabad in the Pakistan-occupied-Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan region against the original inhabitants in these occupied areas. And other which fully understands that the integration of Kashmir into Pakistan would not only reduce the Kashmiri-speaking Muslims to a minority status and deprive them of the political status they have been enjoying since October 1947, but would enable Pakistan to establish its control over the Indus waters. (To be continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
