Daily Times

In a newspaper exclusive interview on 20 June 2019 Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has repeated his first offer of a dialogue made to New Delhi on 19 May 2019 at the Seminar held to commemorate the martyrdom anniversaries of Mirwaiz Muhammad Farooq and Abdul Gani Lone. At the seminar he said, “The Hurriyat is hopeful that whosoever comes to power at New Delhi, they will acknowledge the reality of the Kashmir dispute and engage with the leadership to end the hostility, so that a dignified solution is found to the vexed dispute.”

In the latest interview he has said “we will never shirk from our responsibility to take the political process forward and if Centre show sincerity and will respond in appropriate manner.” The two quotes embed a desire to engage New Delhi.

Living conditions of a common Kashmiri Muslim, the Kashmiri leadership and the youth in particular, in the Valley make our hearts bleed. Indian administration has choked them into a process of life and has been denying them a quality of life. Therefore the political narrative of anyone living in the Valley has to be very different from the luxury politics of Azad Kashmir.

Politicians of Azad Kashmir play to the gallery, when it comes to the warlike engagement of Indian army with the unarmed civilians in the valley. We do not have any merit in the twelve members elected from the amongst refugees for the Azad Kashmir assembly and the Valley input in the Kashmir policy of Azad Kashmir and Pakistan is in splinters. Kashmiri Diaspora is divided and Kashmiris stand against each other at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva as two warring tribes.

There is no harm in holding two opinions but there is a shame that one group stand up to dilute the voice of the other. We cannot fool the UN Human Rights Council that these Kashmiris are not tactical exhibits for India and Pakistan. It helps India.

Finding a dignified solution would throw up new interpretations and hiccups. Kashmir debates have culminated at the UN on a programme to hold a free and fair plebiscite under UN supervision

India has no case except the displacement of Kashmiri Pandits and the jargon of terrorism. On the contrary we have a title to self-determination, UN mechanism to conduct a UN supervised vote and the issue of five generations of Kashmiri Muslims living as refugees in various provinces of Pakistan. Pakistan is a party to the Kashmir dispute and a member nation of UN. We have a strong case but make mistakes. India has no case and has been taking undue advantage.

Under these circumstances a repeat offer for a dialogue from Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has merit. It has been responded by the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, who is an appointee of New Delhi. It would not be the first contact of Hurriyat to talk to Delhi or Islamabad. We need to be sure that Hurriyat has improved upon its mistakes of the past and has a reliable machinery to engage New Delhi.

Prima facie we find that Hurriyat is not the same as it was on 31 July 1993. It was a united political discipline and was duly entertained at the Islamic Summit in Casablanca, Morocco in December 1994. Over the years Hurriyat has not paid any attention to develop a reliable mechanism that would engage New Delhi. If it has plans to repeat the team that met Vajpayee or has been visiting Islamabad, it would have no surprise element.

Mirwaiz may have made an offer in good faith but the question still remains whether, Hurriyat is ready for a detailed and serious dialogue. There is merit in the desires to “end the hostility, so that a dignified solution is found to the vexed dispute”. Unfortunately, it reveals a misdirected wisdom. There is no such thing as ‘dignified solution’ for Kashmir, except a ‘just and fair’ solution, already identified in the Constitution adopted by Hurriyat on 31 July 1993. It is a UN supervised vote.

Finding a dignified solution would throw up new interpretations and hiccups. Kashmir debates have culminated at the UN on a programme to hold a free and fair plebiscite under UN supervision. The UN wisdom on Kashmir dispute has identified “rights and dignity” and “security and self-determination” of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Hurriyat needs to revise its narrative of ‘sentiments and aspirations’ of the people. At this point or at any other point aspirations of Kashmiri Pandits and Kashmiri Muslims and of other communities living in different regions would not be the same. However, the “rights narrative” involving the “rights and dignity” and “security and self-determination” would be acceptable to all.

Hurriyat should not give in to any flattering pat on its shoulders of being called ‘moderate’ or turn away from the engagement for being called ‘hard liner’. As long as Hurriyat accepts the guidance of its unanimously adopted constitution in July 1993, it remains a legitimate voice of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. It would be helpful if the two factions of Hurriyat decided on the common agenda and discussed it with other schools of opinion in and outside Kashmir. There is need to involve people from all communities, including the good meaning Indians and Pakistanis for advice.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Syed Ali Shah Gilani camps do not have enough people with any kind of expertise who could be trusted with a dialogue with New Delhi. If they contemplate a repeat of the previous session with Vajpayee-Advani it would be a great disservice to the people of Kashmir. Times have changed and it is the age of argument. New Delhi has a rich broad spread of wisdom. It has the input of Kashmiri Pandits and many Kashmiri Muslims as well.

Mirwaiz has rightly admitted that ‘experience is the key’. We agree with his admission, “Now, I am into this for last 28-29 years and cannot completely shun the responsibility as Mirwaiz apart from the fact that Hurriyat is there. As a Mirwaiz and religious head of Kashmiri Muslims, having a history, having a background, legacy, I don’t want my future generations to get consumed in this unending conflict. We want some sort of middle path to be explored.”

Although Mirwaiz has been in it for the last 29 years, it would not be enough for him to be able to complete the circle of wisdom on his own. Even after 29 years he seems to have made a serious error, when has said that, “We want some sort of middle path to be explored”. It means he does not have faith in the Hurriyat Constitution and the UN template to carry out a UN supervise vote in Kashmir. If he is prepared to cascade so low without even having a date for a dialogue with Delhi or without having any input, it does not reflect well on the Hurriyat preparedness for a dialogue with the broad spread of wisdom in Delhi. The second error of judgement is to address New Delhi as ‘Centre’. It is not a State and Centre dispute.

The writer is president of London-based Jammu and Kashmir Council for Human Rights, an NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations