news details |
|
|
| Kashmir’s Political Future: Clash between Geelani and Malik - III | | STARK REALITY | |
RUSTAM
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Mar 18: Notwithstanding these dissimilarities, the possibility of the likes of Maliks ultimately endorsing the idea of the state becoming part of Pakistan cannot be overruled. After all, JKLF cadres as well as Yasin Malik are ideologically indoctrinated in Jamait seminaries and this fact cannot be ignored. They will forget their water concerns, as also the Pakistan’s reign of senseless brutalities in Pakistan-occupied-Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan.
India has seen such dissimilarities among the various movements started by the Muslims before 1947, but on the issue of their ultimate objective they were all one. Take, for example, the conflict between the Deobandis and Brelvis and Ahl-i-Hadith. They fought “religious wars against their counterparts of other schools”, but the fundamental difference in their respective ultimate objectives was none.
The same thing is happening in Kashmir. In fact, there had been occasions in Kashmir in the past when Geelani endorsed the methodology of Malik and the vice versa. Did not Geelani hail Yasin Malik’s Safar-e-Azadi, which was conducted under the very nose of the authorities and whose aim was to instigate gullible Kashmiri Muslims against India? The fact of the matter is that despite the religious angularities Geelani and Malik can supplement each other’s efforts in case of need or if the situation so warrants and at the same time fight against each other to keep their support-base intact and remain relevant in Kashmir as they did during the Amarnath land agitation days.
In other words, clashes between their supporters would take place in future as well and the Geelanis and the Maliks would not come on one platform. But they would surely support even the idea of autonomy or self-rule for the state considering it as a great step forward towards their ultimate goal. Of course, they would publicly oppose it and assert that they would not accept anything short of independence from India or right to self-determination. They have done so in the past and they would say so in the future as well. They know what bargain-counter and aggressive posturing mean.
The Geelanis and the Maliks know it full well that it is difficult to sell in India the idea of the state becoming part of Pakistan. They also know that there is a section in India consisting ultra liberals, including some elements in the Indian establishment that may not be averse to the idea of the state getting greater autonomy or even self-rule. They know it that the kind of greater autonomy the National Conference has been demanding or the kind of self-rule the People’s Democratic Party has been demanding since 2005 means just a small step short of independence. They also believe that once New Delhi grants autonomy or self-rule to the state, it would not be difficult for them to achieve their ultimate goal – freedom from India. And, once this happens and if they are ultimately confronted with a choice between independent Kashmir surrounded by hostile neighbours and Pakistan, they would surely opt for Pakistan.
The section comprising the ultra liberals, the so-called human rights activists and progressive trouble-shooters and elements with perverted thinking in the Indian establishment who quite often advocate autonomy for the state do so on the ground that the Kashmiri Muslim leadership’s willingness to accept autonomy or self-rule would be the defeat of the two/three-nation theory and defeat of Pakistan’s ideology and the victory of Indian secularism. This section is known for its view that those demanding freedom from India are secular and moderates and those demanding Pakistan are hardliners. They, including the likes of constitutional lawyer and columnist A G Noorani, former Vice-Chancellor of Jammu University Amitabh Mattoo, the so-called social activist Madhu Kishwar and noted columnist Kuldip Nayar, conveniently forget that freedom of Jammu and Kashmir or its merger with Pakistan means the same thing for India – victory of extreme form of communalism and Indian dismemberment.
It is important to note that there are elements in the United States and the European Union who, like the votaries of autonomy and self-rule, are advocate greater autonomy as a solution to the “Kashmir problem”. They, like the protagonists of autonomy in India, conveniently ignore the fact that a very vast majority of population in the state, which occupies more than 90 per cent of the state’s land area, is opposed to the idea of the state getting more autonomy or self-rule but to talk of independence of the state. This majority, which is quite vocal but overlooked both by New Delhi and others, consists of the people of Jammu and Ladakh, displaced Kashmiri Hindus, Gujjar and Bakerwal Muslims, Shiite Muslims, and even the Pathowari-speaking Muslims. All these people have been suffering at the hands of the Kashmir-based ruling clique.
Thus, the situation in Jammu and Kashmir is one of complexities. The proceedings in the ongoing Assembly session have further proved it. Hence, you cannot determine the Kashmir’s political future on the basis of what the likes of Geelanis and Maliks, who otherwise fight against each other, think about. The state’s political future will have to be determined on the basis of what an overwhelming majority in the state thinks about. New Delhi would do well to take cognizance of the complexities in the state and proceed accordingly. It has no other option but to integrate the state fully into India and discord the like of the Geelanis and Maliks. (Concluded)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
