An ailing Geelani has stated that there is no need to rethink strategies in Kashmir; that hartal is the only viable option to express dissent; and that elections need to be boycotted because when people like himself contested elections their voices were suppressed (Greater Kashmir). these statements need to be put to analysis as there are apprehensions that these commandments may turn political gospel given the stature of the Hurriyat leader and a tendency among the masses to follow blindly. Putting something to analysis does not mean belittling or denigrating anyone. On the contrary, it something into parts, and then subjecting the examination to understand their workings and impact. Hurriyat leader has stated that Kashmiris fought elections to highlight Kashmir issue, but that their voices were suppressed. If he refers to participation in the 1987 elections, then he should know that the 1988-89 armed revolt owes its eruption to MUS’s participation in the elections when he was a member of the assembly as a MUF candidate. MUF MLAs resigned on August 30, 1989 after JKLF issued a warning against them.
But if he refers to Jamaat-e-Islami’s election participation in 1972, then who else would know it better than himself that the then chief minister, Mir Qasim, took the Jamaat for a ride; and that Jamaat did not contest elections to highlight the Kashmir Dispute. In fact Mir Qasim allowed them to contest only when they took oaths, verbal as well as written, that Kashmir was a settled issue (pp335-37 Dastaan-e-Hayat Syed Mir Qasim). Since Plebiscite Front demagogues then paid lip service to self-determination, Mir Qasim arranged a ban on the Plebiscite Front and incarceration of its leaders and workers in Kashmir and Delhi. It is not understandable as to how it becomes a religious duty of Kashmiris to vote when Jamaatis contest elections; and to boycott when they boycott.
If Engineer Rashid can all alone make sufficient noise in and outside the assembly on issues he considers important then why can’t pro-self- determination elements make required noise in the same assembly. Highlighting the Kashmir Dispute in the assembly could serve as an alternative to too frequent hartals and suicidal stone pelting. this would save Kashmir’s precious youth from pellets and bullets. they could spend their energies better on obtaining education including education on the issue of Kashmir. Youth, as also other people irrespective of age and gender, have already rendered immense sacrifices. Only leaders like Geelani Sahib sometimes unjustly accuse them of having failed them.
It hardly matters how India projects participation of Kashmiris in elections. For that matter Kashmiris voted in 2014 assembly elections in large numbers “to keep BJP out” (and thus got tricked). If India projects their participation as an endorsement of Accession, then it would have to accept 1989 absolute boycott followed by boycott in 1996 and 2002 as rejection of Accession. state seems to be favourably disposed to appeals of boycott by Hurriyat. Boycott keeps self-determination activists out of the political power equation and leaves the field open for India’s collaborators. Also it ensures that either NC or PDP capture political power. PDP and NC enjoy the disputed status of Kashmir and the consequent political uncertainty that plagues it. Given such a dispensation even New Delhi is left with no alternative but to allow them enjoy power.
Should the Kashmir Dispute be resolved, New Delhi may not feel itself obliged to suffer the high-handedness of NC and PDP against itself (New Delhi) and Kashmiris. In fact resolution of Kashmir Dispute, irrespective of whether Kashmir finally decides in favour of India or Pakistan, would usher in the demise of PDP and NC and their ilk.
Back to strategies. If strategies are not re-thought from time to time, any movement is bound to lose its dynamism and then it will peter out unnoticed.
