| News Details |
| Merits of Ali Geelani’s Advice | | 
Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani
Chairman Hurriyat (G) Syed Ali Shah Geelani has appealed chairman Tehreek-e-Insaf Imran Khan and Awami Tahreek Tahir-ul-Qadri that they should adopt the ways of understanding and negotiation instead of hostility and confrontation. He has genuinely expressed his anguish and concern over the internal situation of Pakistan pushed to a precipice by these agitations.
It is highly appreciable concern by a leader of his standing and understanding. Before one could attempt a critical appreciation of the appeal, one has to take into account another more serious political event that has impacted the politics, diplomacy and manner of life in India, Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir. It is the decision by the Government of India to cancel the August 25 meeting of Foreign Secretaries of both countries which was to be held in Islamabad.
On May 27 things took a remarkable pleasant turn when Prime Minister of Pakistan attended the oath taking ceremony of Prime Minister of India. It was a new beginning in the relations of the two countries. A number of good will gestures followed and a healthy trend replaced part of the old badly beaten track of mundane pleasantries. The cancellation of Foreign Secretaries meeting follows Pakistani High Commissioner Abdul Basit’s meeting with Hurriyat leaders. High Commissioner had invited them to meet with him in Delhi for “consultations” ahead of those talks. It has infuriated India. Syed Akbaruddin, spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry said, “Under present circumstances, it seems no useful purpose will be served by the Foreign Secretary visiting Islamabad, therefore the visit stands cancelled.”
The outcome of the cancellation of Foreign Secretary meeting is not in the interests of the people of Kashmir. India on Wednesday 20 August 2014 strongly hit out at Pakistan for describing Kashmiri separatists as ‘stakeholders’ in the resolution of Kashmir problem, saying as per Simla Agreement it was a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan and any other approach will “not yield results”. Syed Akbaruddin said, “After 1972 and the signing of the Simla Agreement by the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, there are only two ‘stakeholders’ on the issue of Jammu & Kashmir – the Union of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. “This is a principle which is the bedrock of our bilateral relations. This was reaffirmed in the Lahore Declaration of 1999 between Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Prime Minister Vajpayee”.
Prima facie one can see that Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit reiterated in his press conference that Kashmir was a bilateral issue. I did not see any clarification on that. If Kashmir is a bilateral issue then Hurriyat does not remain ‘stakeholders’. Even Hurriyat or any other Kashmiri leader has not addressed this remark coming from the Pakistan High Commissioner. It is far remote from Hurriyat Constitution and the UN Resolutions on Kashmir.
One wonders if the cumulative results of continued interaction of Hurriyat with Pakistan High Commission in Delhi, their visits to Pakistan and interactions in the past, faith in the Hurriyat Constitution adopted in July 1993 and understanding of the Kashmir case has ended up in August 2014 with Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit’s understanding that Kashmir was a bilateral dispute between India and Pakistan and Kashmiris were ‘stakeholders’. The mocking irony is that Abdul Basit reiterated Pakistani stand (bilateral dispute) after meeting the Hurriyat leaders.
Something has gone terribly wrong somewhere in maintaining the dignity of Kashmir case and Kashmiri argument since 1990. Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit’s stand does not marry with article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan and with the role of Pakistan defined in “Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974”. Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit is an experienced diplomat and has served at the most important capital in London. He understands the variables of Kashmiri opinions on the subject and would not make an error while interpreting the jurisprudence of UN Resolutions. Although he did refer to UN Resolutions in his press briefing but ended with the remark that Kashmir was a bilateral dispute between India and Pakistan and Kashmiris were ‘stakeholders’.
One would like to stay away from the belief that our Kashmiri leaders do not go to these meetings and interactions to explain their case and to defend the dignity of their argument. After readily accepting Musharraf’s 4 point formula and distancing away from the basics of the Kashmir case, they have now acquiesced to a disturbing interpretation that the dispute is a bilateral dispute. If it is bilateral dispute between India and Pakistan, then India does have an overbearing claim and the meetings of Kashmiri leaders in the Pakistan High Commission would be regarded as out of character.
At the same time, Indian stand equally does not have a merit that Kashmir is a bilateral dispute. India on its part has to take into account the four duties that it has taken upon to discharge in Kashmir in the bilateral agreement of 26/27 October 1947 and article 4 and 48 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution adopted in November 1956. India can’t override the stipulations made in its application under article 35 of UN Charter to the UN Security Council. It has slated its case at the UN Security Council in the following manner:
“The question of the future status of Kashmir vis-à-vis her neighbours and the world at large and a further question, namely, whether she should withdraw from her accession to India, and either accede to Pakistan or remain independent, with a right to claim admission as a Member of the United Nations – all this we have recognized to be a matter for unfettered decision by the people of Kashmir, after normal life is restored to them.” UN SC Document S/Agenda 227. Government of India can’t nudge pass the fact that Government of Jammu and Kashmir is under a caution of UN Security Council Resolution of 30 March 1951.
Indian and Pakistani expertise on UN and Kashmir case, far excel the understanding and expertise of Kashmiri leadership. Therefore, these distractions by India and Pakistan may be deliberate efforts to test the responses from the people of Kashmir and in the absence of a valid argument, India and Pakistan would like to cruise in on a consensus to suit their national interests. The People of Jammu and Kashmir hope that India would honour its part of jurisprudence of Kashmir case, namely, duties under the bilateral agreement and basics of its case at the UN Security Council and so would Pakistan honour its part of the jurisprudence of Kashmir case as set out in article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan and “Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974”.
Chairman Hurriyat (G) Syed Ali Shah Geelani has to work at home to limit the damage done to Kashmiri interests, following their visit to Pakistan High Commission in Delhi at the same time when he has appealed chairman Tehreek-e-Insaf Imran Khan and Awami Tahreek Tahir-ul-Qadri to adopt the ways of understanding and negotiation instead of hostility and confrontation. In fact it would be wrong to say that the followers of the two Pakistani political parties are part of any conspiracy from within or without. It is a graduation of common voter into a higher level of asserting themselves as vigilant citizens.
Syed Ali Shah Geelani is highly regarded in Pakistan and his advice should not cause any harm to this respect and regard. It should remain in equity and on merit. I am invited this evening by Mohammad Ghalib President Tehreek-e-Kashmir, Europe to a book launch ceremony of a book “Paradise On Fire Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Struggle for Freedom in Kashmir” at 6pm at Grand Occasions, 22 Solihull Road, Birmingham (UK). It goes without doubt that Geelani Sahib has a wider constituency and he has to be equally cautious in his advice and narrative.
Imran Khan and Tahir-ul-Qadri have a legitimate cause to espouse. Unfortunately, they do not want to resolve their grievances in accordance with the Constitutional prescription. Both seem to have welfare of a common citizen at heart but both have tucked themselves in bulletproof containers and have left their followers exposed to bad weather, disturbing temperatures and lack of other facilities of wash and relieve. The political narratives of the two have been either mediocre or calling for blood.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Imran Khan and Pakistan Awami Tahreek (PAT) and Hurriyat seem to have one thing in common, that none of them remember that they have a Constitution and Constitutional discipline is the best guide in the solution of Problems.
(Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani is Secretary General – JKCHR, NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations)
(Opinions expressed in write-ups/articles/Letters are the sole responsibility of the authors and they may not represent the scoopnews.in)
Editor, Scoop News
... |
| |
|
|
Share this Story |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|