Centre must recognise sombre realities, says Hurriyat chief

By Shujaat Bukhari

Allowing a delegation of the All-Party Hurriyat Conference to visit Pakistan would be the most important ingredient in the peace process initiated by the Government of India five months ago, according to Prof. Abdul Ghani Bhat, APHC chairman. Stressing that the BJP-led Government ``backtracked'' on the issue, he says the prevailing confusion is not unexpected.

The college teacher-turned-politician, who was dismissed from Government service in 1986 for airing anti-India views, Prof. Bhat was elected chairman of the 23-party conglomerate last year in a direct contest with another executive member, Mr. Abdul Gani Lone. He believes that there is no alternative to talks but insists on the recognition of ``sombre realities'' by India. The involvement of Pakistan in any kind of negotiations is not only necessary but also vital for the peace process to fructify.

Prof. Bhat describes the Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party chief, Mr. Shabir Shah's recent move to send a team to Delhi as a ``premature abortion of an effort which did not exist.'' In an interview to The Hindu at his residence here, Prof. Bhat maintained that the APHC had not rejected the offer of talks but wanted New Delhi to ensure that the dispute on Jammu and Kashmir was addressed.

Shujaat Bukhari: Why did the APHC decide against entering into a dialogue with the Centre?

Prof. Bhat: Peace process has to be viewed with reference to the dispute of Jammu and Kashmir. If you talk peace without taking into account the issue which constitutes a threat to it, you are going to end up nowhere. The APHC has to take a position which is commensurate with sombre political realities. Without involving Pakistan, India and the people of Jammu and Kashmir, we cannot restore peace in South Asia. Both India and Pakistan are nuclear. If they fight another war, it will be a disaster and if you want to banish the ghosts of war and ensure nuclear peace, the dispute of Jammu and Kashmir has to be addressed.

You mean India should accept it is a dispute?

No, I do not say that because I believe the GoI has recognised Kashmir as a dispute and the international community has also done so. Above all, India and Pakistan have fought three wars over it. If they say it is not a dispute I will be amused.

What is the reality?

The reality is that there are three parties to the dispute. Future dispensation is involved. It is not an ethnic issue, not a law and order problem and of course not an internal dispute. Therefore, when you talk in terms of peace it has to be comprehensive, purposeful and result-oriented.

But a beginning has been made... Why don't you cooperate with the (peace) process?

If you want to purchase peace, you cannot do it by any stretch of imagination unless you address the issue. You have to have a road map. If the APHC (delegation) had been given an opportunity to travel to Pakistan, it would have helped. This is the most important step, if at all, for the GoI and the people of Kashmir. It is the right step in the right direction. In the past, you emphasised flexibility on the issue. Apparently the Centre has been flexible and not put any conditions. Why have you not moved ahead?

The Hurriyat has demonstrated a deeper sense of flexibility than the GoI with reference to peace process. We did not, as a forum, reject the unilateral ceasefire announced by the Prime Minister, Mr. A. B. Vajpayee, but we did reject the same announced by the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen. We thought the Prime Minister was clear about it (the announcement). That is why we suggested that we be allowed to go to Pakistan. We wanted to talk to the mujahideen in Pakistan and the Government of Pakistan. India was honour-bound to allow the visit. They (the Centre) backtracked. It is not a healthy trend in politics.

Do you think the ceasefire is still relevant?

It is not. It can only be relevant if the other party accepts it. It can be successful only when APHC is allowed to go to Pakistan so that we talk to the mujahideen and return with a message of peace.

Why are you putting conditions when the offer of the GoI is not conditional?

The (Centre's) statement was cleverly drafted. You will not come across a single sentence where it committed that it (the offer) was unconditional. I suspect that the offer is conditional when you go deep into it. When you talk about law and order, it is an internal track and it becomes a domestic issue. When they refer to agreed solution it is, I believe, autonomy which, of course, is not a solution to the problem.

When you oppose the involvement of diverse political parties, like the pro-India groups, in the dialogue how can you take into confidence the people of all regions and religions?

We feel the APHC represents whole of Jammu and Kashmir. We represent the predominant view in the State.

But there seems to be a clear division among the people of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh?

I agree. There is dissent along communal lines. This is the bottomline. That is why we say that plebiscite is the only solution. If the majority goes in favour of India we will accept it and withdraw our demand. A majority decision has to be accepted by all the parties to the dispute.

How do you view the proposal based on the division of Kashmir State?

It will be if and when we sit down and talk about solutions.

You do not rule out division as proposed by the U.S.-based Kashmir Study Group?

I do not rule it out. This is my personal view. I was in its favour in 1994 when I said the Dixon plan can be implemented with alterations here and there.

Mr. Shabir Shah has recently sent a team to Delhi expressing his willingness to join the process?

One party can never do it. He has every right to choose his path. But he may not be knowing this path is strewn with thorns and prick of the thorn is so dangerous that you can bleed profusely.

But he has started from somewhere?

I consider it a premature abortion of an effort which does not exist at all. When he apparently says he is walking, he is not walking and he never will walk. It is always a collective leadership which can take a decision.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : SC ruling on property tax assessment
Next     : Team likely for Iraq to probe rejection of wheat