|
|
|
|
APHC dumped as toxic waste |
|
|
Dr Syed Nazir Gilani |
|
|
Unbending and arrogant even when supplanted as a proxy, a post-1990
leadership that held sway up until yesterday, better known as APHC Azad
Kashmir/Pakistan chapter has been dumped as a toxic waste. The
establishment in Pakistan is back to basics and a soft spoken, father
figure of the resistance movement Farooq Rahmani is back on the
steering wheel. Prof Nazir Ahmad Shawl, battered and bruised by intrigue
and gossip, too has crawled out of the cold. They should remember that
they have not done it alone and on their own. At least two of my close friends in the limelight, hopefully would not cause an eclipse in the path of others. Others dumped and doused with the acid of anger too have been part friends and part amoebae. They can be forgiven because they had to keep a balance between a political morality and their canvas of varied interests. APHC Azad Kashmir/Pakistan chapter was extraneous to APHC Constitution. There is not much that has remained constitutional in APHC on the Indian side of Kashmir, but the lads in APHC Azad Kashmir/Pakistan chapter were doing a good job. If they did not do it for the suffering people, they however succeeded to seek collateral gains for their children and kept a usefulness for themselves till they became a toxic waste. Some of them have enormous potential and can withstand vagaries of politics. Some, of course, do not deserve a mention. On balance, the majority opted for a cheap gossip and decided to walk two steps behind, to convince the ‘invisibles’ of their sublime nature and obedience. Now that they are history, they should accept the change with a grace. It is in the fall that one’s grace and class is made or unmade. Unfortunately, in this political metamorphosis on the Pakistani side of Line of Control (LoC), the losers failed to hold their breath at least for a day. Ali Shah Gilani has been labeled as RAW and MOSAD agent by the very team that acted as accessories in his political rucksack. Ali Shah Gilani could be arraigned for his understanding of the jurisprudence of Kashmir case. He can be criticised for his iniquitous regard of the people living under three administrations at Muzaffarabad, Gilgit and Srinagar and for a political approach, which stands at variance to APHC Constitution. The use of these two adjectives with his name by those duly sacked by the employer makes them from ridiculous to vulgar. I have known Ali Shah Gilani since 1968 at a very close and personal level. Without any prejudice to our core kinship I have continued to disagree with his understanding of the Kashmir case. I have no disagreement with his belief that the people of Jammu and Kashmir should accede to Pakistan. He has every right to advocate and hold his political faith. But the vires and the bona fides of his faith do not reconcile with the jurisprudence of the case. As a start he has to position his political faith in the best interests of the Rights Movement. More so, the pluralistic composition of Jammu and Kashmir has to be represented to protect the interests of the various communities and religions involved. At this point Gilani is giving an impression that he represents Muslims living in the Valley and that accession to Pakistan is a predetermined interest. It proposes a division along various considerations and religion is one amongst them. It does not remain a Rights Movement of the people. The fact of the matter is that Kashmir cannot accede to Pakistan unless the conditions stipulated in Article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan are satisfied. A jurisprudence of action leading up to an accession exists in this regard, and unless that is strictly followed there can be no accession. This jurisprudence has set a litmus test for the Kashmiri leadership as well. I disagreed with the decision of the establishment to wind up THK lead by Farooq Rahmani in 1993. The disagreement became public in an editorial in monthly Gaash titled THK Sai APHC Tak in September 1993 issue. I equally disagreed with the treatment meted out to Prof. Shawl by colleagues in THK and later in APHC Azad Kashmir chapter. At one stage I intervened and requested Farooq Rahmani to consider Shawl with kindness and dignity. This support enabled him to keep his ego intact and his visibility sharp at a time when he was humbled and marginalised. One would not agree much with the political statement made by new convener of APHC Azad Kashmir chapter on various items. However, the statement of intent made by Rahmani contains two important principles. He has said that no political party or person is authorized to hold a dialogue with the Government of India. He has said that if a dialogue with Indian government is unavoidable, the leadership shall have to ‘seek a mandate’ from the people and it shall have to spell out a ‘mechanism’. APHC lead by Ansari is according to the discipline of the APHC Constitution. It is not a person or a party but an alliance. On the contrary, the faction lead by Gilani has its contours of undeniable visibility. One cannot eclipse the other. Either of the two camps has to prove itself in accordance with the Constitution and in case of a further dispute offer themselves to a ‘peoples’ adjudication. Farooq Rahmani, of course, has the benefit of a long association with the Rights Movement, no doubt of his own understanding and the benefit of being the first convener of THK. He has an understanding of suffering and a full experience of how self-interests vanquish principles and people like him are driven to oblivion. He has the benefit of having in his neighborhood upright and exemplary characters like Mahmood Ahmad Saghar of PDFP, who volunteered to bid a farewell to his position as the first convener of APHC Azad Kashmir chapter but refused to compromise on a principle, on the expulsion of Shabir Ahmad Shah from main APHC in Srinagar. Unfortunately, the APHC Azad Kashmir chapter now consigned in deep sea as toxic waste failed to summon the Saghar like moral courage to write a second paragraph of ‘good character’ in the politics of interest. However, one would not agree with the political statement of Rahmani that India and Pakistan should meet first on the principle of ‘necessity’ and that the people of Jammu and Kashmir should be included thereafter. He has got the priorities wrong. I have known Rahmani since my college days when he was a young, energetic editor of Weekly Azan. He is a writer, politician and does not fail to make his point. Unfortunately, his reference to the principle of ‘necessity’ does not sit well with common sense, existing circumstances and the jurisprudence of the case. India and Pakistan have a set position on Kashmir and each accepts the claim of the other. As against their sovereign claims the people of Jammu and Kashmir have a title to a Rights Movement in general and self-determination in particular. India and Pakistan are meeting day in and day out at various levels. There is a full diplomatic interaction, a people to people contact, trade contact, contact through treatment of sick, rail, road and air contact, cultural contact and the people are just a phone call away. A Pakistani is not dreaded as an agent by Indians or vice versa. Both endeavour to pay reparation for their respective sins committed at the time of partition. They hold fairs and conferences on either side to imprison the past and free a future. On the contrary, the two countries do not allow a contact between the three people living under the three administrations of Srinagar, Muzaffarabad and Gilgit. There is no regular contact between the people of Muzaffarabad and Gilgit even on the Pakistani side of LoC. The people of Kashmir have reached a cul de sac of their Rights Movement and it is our duty that we cause the order of priorities right to the benefit of our people. India and Pakistan have institutional wisdom and state resources to protect their respective interests. The people of Kashmir are faced with a failed THK, a failed APHC and a burden of a new political party is added to the list every week. Pakistan has the advantage of shaping and reshaping the Kashmiri politics in Azad Kashmir and even the APHC kind on its side. It generates an advantage in its favour to instill a psychology of its demanding in the APHC ranks at Srinagar. Indian government too has a safe constituency in the coalition government and in the opposition voted into office by the real people of Kashmir. Indian government also reaps the legitimate benefit of a Kashmiri nationalism – Kashmir for Kashmiris. The arrogant, unaccountable, non-transparent, undemocratic, privatised and commercialised political culture of APHC has disillusioned the people in Kashmir. A self-serving political culture leaves a gap, which is duly filled by the institutional wisdom of Indian new approach on Kashmir. India has realised that it can no more afford to bank on a ‘proxy politics’ and that the culture of a political elite has passed its sell by date. It is on the basis of the institutional strengths that Indian government has rattled Pakistan by making a Kashmir specific proposal – Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service. At a time when Rahmani very rightly sets out the need for a ‘peoples permission’ and the need to ‘spell out a mechanism’ for a dialogue, the wisdom of the argument has to be matched by the new APHC Azad Kashmir chapter itself. It has to place the order of its priorities and the principle of necessity before the people to adjudicate. Rahmani has clarified that the doors of new political outfit (new APHC under his signature) are not shut upon those who constituted the previous APHC. I am sure that the new tenants of the APHC office fully understand that they have a duty beyond themselves, deep into the territory of other political opinions. APHC office should not be a private house but a house that welcomes the people of Kashmir of any political faith. The new convener does not need to dispute that ignorance is the root cause of many problems. It is knowledge that eradicates one's shortcomings and delivers us from bondage. It is important that the new APHC Azad Kashmir chapter, positions itself in the best interests of the three people living under the administrative controls of India and Pakistan at Srinagar, Muzaffarabad and Gilgit. But can it do that when it has decided to represent a divide in the APHC at Srinagar? Can it rave courage to challenge the culture of obedience of walking two steps behind and venture at least to walk half a step ahead to rehabilitate the disfigured face of ‘Kashmiri leadership’? And how would it pass the constitutionality and physicality of Ansari lead APHC? How would it adjust itself in regards to non-APHC schools of politics on either side of LoC and abroad? More so, would the Gilani-led APHC and its chapter in Azad Kashmir/Pakistan still conduct their political agenda in accordance with the constitution adopted in 1993 or change their horse’s midstream? (The views expressed in this article belong solely to the author. Author is Chairman of International Kashmir Alliance - IKA) Hindustan Time UK 22.11.2003 |
|
|
[Articles][Audios][Archives][Books][Contact][ Geography][Human Rights][Index Page][News&Views][Profiles][Photos Home][Web Media] |
|
|
2000/2003-All right Reserved kashmiris.org |