by NYLA ALI KHAN
IMAGE/Wikipedia
In 1993, over thirty political organizations joined hands to form a coalition group known as the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC). The conglomerate comprised Syed Ali Shah Geelani of the Jamaat-e-Islami, Abdul Ghani Lone of the People’s Conference, Maulvi Abbas Ansari of the Liberation Council, and Professor Abdul Ghani Bhat of the Muslim Conference (MC), and was headed by the then teenaged religious leader of the Awami Action Committee, Maulvi Omar Farooq. The commonality that bound these politicians and religious leaders of disparate ideologies was the necessity to give the people of J & K the right of self-determination. The various components of the APHC were at loggerheads about whether independence was the most desirable solution for the troubled state, or whether unification with Pakistan was the better alternative. The APHC gave the militants a forum at which they could voice their collective political ideology, but their demands were such that they could not consider a viable solution within the framework of the Indian constitution. The APHC has since been joined by the leader of a breakaway faction of the JKLF, Yasin Malik. While most of the other components of the conglomerate lean toward unification with Pakistan, Malik tenaciously adheres to JKLF’s ideology of independence for the former princely state. A leader of one of the core groups of the APHC, Abdul Ghani Lone was assassinated in 2002. Another unyielding Islamist member of the organization, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, severed ties with the APHC after Maulvi Omar Farooq seemed to do a volte-face by beseeching the militant factions to adopt a more reconciliatory approach. It is necessary to point out here that Geelani was a member of the J & K Legislative Assembly from 1972 to 1977, 1977 to 1982, and 1987 to 1990. During his three tenures as a member of the assembly, Geelani was not quite as vociferous about the illegitimacy of the accession of J & K to the Indian Union, nor did he publicly prioritize the autonomy of the state. I consider it pertinent to point out that Syed Ali Shah Geelani owes his post-June resurrection to the quadriplegia of the government. The Omar Farooq-led APHC has been vacillating about its political stance vis-à-vis the status of the state, equivocating between reversion to the pre-1953 autonomous status of Indian-administered J & K within the Constitution of India as the most expedient solution to the Kashmir conflict, and the unacceptability of any solution within the said Constitution. The leadership of the APHC has participated in various international fora. The bona fide intentions of this organization can come under question; they can be held accountable; but they cannot be brow beaten into quelling their opinions at a legitimate forum. Although some of us might not agree with the modus operandi of the APHC, the manhandling of their leadership at seminars organized by and for the civil societies of various Indian cities cannot be condoned.
It is clear as day that in the past two decades the policies of the Indian administration have not only failed to win the “war” in Kashmir, but have also led to an increase in alienation. While the current administration’s rhetoric toward militancy and separatism might have softened, has there been any substantive change in its policies towards the populace of J & K, especially the marginalized? Historically, there are plenty of examples of governments creating and/or reinforcing national tradition in a fascist form.
A democracy thrives on dissent and does create legitimate spaces for voicing political opinions that conflict with those of the establishment. Every intelligent and right thinking person would find the mass exodus of the Kashmiri Pandit community in 1989-1990 reprehensible; an exodus that not only caused the dispossession and dislocation of an entire community, but also attenuated the sociocultural fabric of Kashmir. There is no doubt in my mind that the organized removal of Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley dealt an irreparable blow to the rich cultural heritage of Kashmir. The heart rending displacement particularly of those Pandits who looked for safe havens in refugee camps has been horrific, but that doesn’t justify the attempt to repress arguments for the restoration of autonomy to J & K; holding arguments for a plebiscite in J & K under UN auspices, which some would consider a seemingly unviable solution in this day and age; holding state agencies responsible for human rights violations in the now predominantly Muslim Valley.
I find certain aspects of the disparate ideologies espoused by the leadership of the APHC questionable, but they have as much right as any mainstream organization to reach out to civil societies in Indian states; articulate their opinions; be placed in the dock and held answerable; given legitimate refutations of their opinions; shown through rebuttal if their politics lack substance. Unless the democratic aspirations of the people are respected; the need for civilized dialogue is recognized; and the ability to bring about meaningful change without brutal military intervention is recognized, there can be no construction of stable and lasting democratic institutions in J & K. Nationalistic aspirations do not have to be fanatical to be effectual, nor does the demand for fundamental rights have to be self-destructive. Writers/ orators/ ideologues do not have to conform to a homogenized Indian identity nor do they have to kowtow to nationalist ideology in order to participate in political dialogue. Speaking truth to power is the need of the day.
(Nyla Ali Khan is a faculty member at the University of Oklahoma, and member of Scholars Strategy Network. She is the author of Fiction of Nationality in an Era of Transnationalism, Islam, Women, and Violence in Kashmir, The Life of a Kashmiri Woman, and the editor of The Parchment of Kashmir. She is editor of the Oxford Islamic Studies’ special issue on Jammu and Kashmir. She can be reached at nylakhan@aol.com)