Huryat groups and JKLF need to revisit their politics after recent elections in IAK. ( Mumtaz Khan ) As just a day away from the last phase of elections in Indian Administered Kashmir (IAK) and still eyes are fixed on voter turn out in last phase. This time high voter turn out in elections has created panic among Hurayat Conference and militant groups when media reported between 70-75% in first two phases. As a result anti-elections groups launched militant attacks before third and fourth poll to prevent people from casting vote in which 21 civilians including Indian soldiers were killed. They also kidnapped one Sarpanch and killed him to terrorize the voters not to cast votes in remaining polls but in spite of attacks and repeated boycott calls people once again turned up in large number in third and fourth phases that further raised questions about the dwindling political support of Hurayt groups and JKLF and their claims of representing Kashmiris. The panic in separatist camp was understandable because it has further raised questions about their politics who on the one hand dismissing elections by saying that elections were not to determine for future of J&K while on the other hand didn’t leave any stone unturned to stop people from participating in the elections. Interestingly, Hurayat groups and UJC warned people that casting vote amounts to be a betrayal to martyrs blood but at the same time these groups accusing each other for betraying martyrs’ blood and each group still claiming to be representatives of Kashmiris. Question is that did they ever wonder why people didn’t succumb to their threats and boycott calls that they need to revisit, re-examine and seek answer than bent upon using failed tactic and means for making themselves political relevant. Last elections percentage should have served them lesson and they should have evolved strategy by connecting with people than relying on Islamabad for game change in Kashmir. Their politics is already in crisis when Islamabad itself facing existential threat from the proxy politics and militant groups she had created for political mileage. Reasons are obvious because People always live close to the social and political realities than the leaders since they encounter issues on day-to-day basis that leaders don’t. They dismiss significance of socio-economic realities that play important part in making new political realities to which if leadership fails to grasp ultimately becomes irrelevant in the political arena. Politics is means of delivery of promises leaders make during the course of their political struggle but when they fail to interpret or deliver those promises loose public trust. People in Valley lent them support in 1990s and post militancy during shutter down, wheel-jam or stone pelting but when Huryat leaders couldn’t think beyond strike and shutter down that was again hurting common people economically and socially. As a result they decide to have their input in future governance that is empowered by voters and has means to deliver the promises they made. The political choice people express through free will by electing their representatives can’t be replaced with the bullet that some groups trying to impose their choice against the expressed will of majority. There is stark difference between failing to force government but people and one can’t have different results by repeating similar actions or tactic. Government responds bullet with bullet because it is always stronger than non-state actors while people succumb to threats or bullets or voluntarily join them for political or economic reasons to see change in status quo. When these groups fail to translate that public support into political mandate or to bring about change in the status quo people are forced to revisit their choices. That is what has happened in the Kashmir when Hurayat groups instead of translating that movement into political mandate and assumed people will regard electoral process meaningless because they think so but over the period public responded differently after exhausting all options. They should have learned from Sheikh Abdullah’s decision that had to return to political process after 23 years of long incarceration and protest politics since none of them can even think to reach to his popularity or leadership in Kashmir let alone any comparison with him. Delhi’s proxy politics forced people to question and rise against it and public willingly and unwillingly supported that uprising in 1990s believing that they will change status quo but Huryat groups thought Islamabad proxy militant groups would capture Kashmir and they will be put at the helm of affairs without going into political process. 9/11 terrorist attack changed global political scenario that helped New Delhi to reestablish its legitimacy through electoral process. They were critical late 1990s and early 2000 elections that New Delhi was forcibly made people to cast their votes but now when people voluntarily coming out in large number they are attacking people not to cast vote, what moral or political justification they have, and if people in spite of attacks, threats and boycott calls voted in large number their politics is in serious trouble. The solution they found for this political impasse that their politics created, was internal divisions to create an opponent to blame him for their failures a typical Islamabad modus operandi of using enemy image (India) for their economic and political failures. The footsteps of Islamabad Hurayat and other groups fare following leading them into a tunnel that has no light on the other end. The reason is that Pakistan unfolding internal crisis are result of similar politics of conquering neighbors through the proxy militant groups now challenging the very existence of Pakistan. Many still argue that change in military establishment is yet far from over as they think they manufacture these crises and they can easily manage. Perhaps, Huryat groups still sitting with same hope that when Islamabad will overcome its internal problems than will come to their rescue and will rehabilitate them politically. The other problem or contradiction in Huryat groups and JKLF politics people find in their very stance on issue of elections in IAK, and elections in Pakistan Administered Kashmir (PAK). They force people Srinagar to boycott elections in Valley because they are not credible because they are not able to win but same time they see elections in PAK credible and they laud Islamabad’s controlled elections in which only that person is eligible to participate in election who signs the declaration of “state accession with Pakistan” and those disagree with it and call state’s status disputed are disqualified. They don’t see such Constitutional restraints against the right to self-determination. They share platform with PAK leaders and enjoy their hospitality in Pakistan and abroad. They never see problem with Pakistan military and political leadership that openly calls Kashmir’s every inch belongs to Pakistan, and their silence on it simply suggests they are in agreement with Pakistan’s stance and politics of claiming Kashmir.
Posted on: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 16:14:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015