Though nothing spectacular was ever expected to come out from the Indo-Pak Foreign Secretary level meeting slated on August 25, no one could have ever imagined that New Delhi would take the extreme step of unilaterally calling off these talks. It is indeed surprising that it took this drastic step simply because Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit, disregarding New Delhi’s objections, decided to hold consultations with Huriyat leaders on the forthcoming Foreign Secretary talks. After all, meetings between Pakistan High Commission officials and separatists prior to any Indo-Pak parleys, has been a common practice and so this meeting with separatists was nothing new. One can always dismiss this as a mere ploy to avoid talks on Kashmir or the manifestation of the Modi government’s ‘right wing’ philosophy and ‘Hindutva’ agenda. However, whatever is the reason, the fact of the matter is that this incident reflects a paradigm shift in New Delhi’s foreign policy which neither Islamabad nor the Hurriyat afford to overlook. The initial response of Islamabad as well as the separatists to New Delhi’s decision of cancelling the talks gives one the impression that both were not the least prepared for such an eventuality. And this is exactly the reason why introspection on this very serious and unprecedented development is so important. So, let us begin by briefly recounting the reasons given by New Delhi to call off the talks: •Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Syed Akbaruddin has disclosed that Indian Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh had spoken with Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit prior to his scheduled meeting with the Huriyat leaders. The spokesperson said that during this conversation, “it was underlined that the Pakistani High Commissioner’s meeting with these so-called leaders of the Hurriyat undermines the constructive diplomatic engagement initiated by Prime Minister Modi.” Ms Singh has also been quoted as talking tough and telling the Pakistan High Commissioner that, “You can have dialogue with India or separatists!” •Conveying New Delhi’s view, Akbaruddin made a scathing attack on Islamabad by saying that “at a time when serious initiatives were being undertaken by the Indian government to move bilateral ties forward, including towards the resumption of a regular dialogue process, the invitation to so-called leaders of the Huriyat by Pakistan’s High Commissioner does indeed raise questions about Pakistan’s sincerity and shows that its negative approaches and attempts to interfere in India’s internal affairs continue unabated.” He also said that, the only path available to Pakistan is to resolve outstanding issues with peaceful, bilateral dialogue within the framework and principles of Simla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration. From these statements it is evident that the newly elected Modi government has decided to use this incident for sending the strong and unambiguous message that: •It does not recognise the separatist leadership (which it has referred to as “so-called leaders of the Huriyat”) as the representatives of the people of Kashmir and thus sees no role for them in the Indo-Pak dialogue on Kashmir. •It considers Islamabad’s consultations with the Hurriyat leaders as an attempt “to interfere in India’s internal affairs.” •It is trying to “move bilateral ties forward, including towards the resumption of a regular dialogue process,” while Islamabad is showing “negative approaches.” •It is willing to resolve outstanding issues with Pakistan, but only within “the framework and principles of Simla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration. In order to learn some lessons for the future, it may be more prudent to have the courage and accept the reality, no matter how harsh or unpalatable it is. Can anyone deny that the initial reaction of both Islamabad and the separatist conglomerate to New Delhi’s decision to call off talks has been meek? Is it not a fact that while New Delhi has taken a tough stance and leveled very serious allegations against both Islamabad as well as the Hurriyat leaders, all they have done in return is to respond in an extremely guarded and defensive manner? Is it not true that both Islamabad and the Huriyat have adopted an ‘apologist attitude’ on this issue by giving the excuse that since such meetings had taken place in the past, both were merely following this ‘precedent’ and ‘convention’? Islamabad has sought to defend this meeting by saying, “It is a long-standing practice that prior to Pakistan- India talks, meetings with Kashmiri leaders are held to facilitate meaningful discussions on the issue of Kashmir.” The Huriyat (G) chairman Syed Ali Geelani too has expressed similar sentiments by stating, “There was nothing new in separatist leaders meeting with Pakistani envoy. It has been a routine that whenever a Pakistani leader visited India, they used to meet us.” The Huriyat (M) chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq said, We only convey our views and this is not the first time that such an exercise has been conducted.” Stating that For the last two decades, we have been meeting all visiting Pakistani dignitaries and High Commissioners,” JKLF chief Mohammad Yasin Malik quipped - “What is new in this?” While there may be nothing new in what the Pakistan High Commissioner or the Huriyat did, there is certainly something absolutely new in what New Delhi has done. By its decision to call off the talks, New Delhi has made it clear that it does not recognise the Huriyat as the vox populi of the Kashmiris. Why has it done so? Could it be simply because it knows that the international community is not likely to challenge this point of view? After all, while the Hurriyat may be extremely popular with the masses, but till the time it can prove this through the ballot; this conglomerate cannot expect the international community to consider it to be the true and sole representatives of the Kashmiris. So, the Huriyat needs to either address this issue and do something about it, or else, be prepared to be sidelined in the future too and keep complaining about being victims of some ‘grand conspiracy’. New Delhi has benefitted immensely from the Huriyat’s continuing obduracy in coming onto the negotiating table as through its ‘open offer’ for talks, New Delhi has squarely put the ball in the Huriyat’s court. It has also taken advantage of the Huriyat’s dwindling credibility within the international community on account of some of its ill- considered decisions and actions such as, disrupting the democratic process in Kashmir by calling for poll boycotts, displaying unconditional solidarity with the ‘armed struggle’ by accepting it as a ‘legitimate’ means for achieving the ‘right to self determination’ and sympathising with the likes of Osama bin Laden. So, faced with a Hurriyat that has no well defined or comprehensive roadmap for carrying the movement for the ‘right to self determination’ forward and suffering from serious ‘credibility deficit’, everything is in New Delhi’s favour. So, it can always afford to unilaterally cancel talks with Islamabad and disregard the Huriyat. The problem with the Huriyat is that they like to hear only what pleases their ears and any suggestion that seeks to apprise them of their shortcomings is viewed as a ‘conspiracy’ against the struggle for ‘azadi’ and promptly dismissed. However, it cannot continue living in a world of make-belief and the time has come for it to look beyond hartals and adopt a more effective strategy for espousing the Kashmir cause. The Huriyat needs to introspect as to why is the international community so wary of getting involved in resolution of the Kashmir problem process when UN resolutions on Kashmir exist? Why the Kashmir issue on which the UN has adjudicated has been downgraded by the international community into a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan? Why have diplomats and officials of influential nations stopped conferring with the Huriyat leadership? In the present day world order, Pakistan’s support alone cannot ensure achievement of our ‘right to self determination’. The Huriyat thus has no other choice but to gain goodwill and support of the international community and so, it has to adopt a strategy which automatically gains international acceptance and attracts support. This would require a complete rethink on its current approach and may require taking some hard decisions like completely disassociating itself from ‘armed struggle’ as the same makes the international community wary of supporting the Kashmir cause. The Huriyat must realise that though we have a legitimate cause, it doesn’t give us the right to defy international convention by legitimising violence even if we project the same as ‘armed resistance’ or ‘freedom struggle’ and Palestine is a case in point. However, whether the Huriyat can do this is difficult to tell! (Feedback at: niloofar.qureshi@yahoo)
Posted on: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 05:20:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015