Should trust in politics:Hurriyat Chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq

The alliance must realizes that violence will not help the people of Kashmir, and allow New Delhi and Islamabad to resolve the situation General Ayub Khan, then at the helm of the Pakistan government, is believed to have told Soviet prime minister Alexei Kosygin that if India were to come to a settlement with Shaikh Mohammad Abdullah, head of the Jammu and Kashmir government at that time, Pakistan might accept the agreement. Kosygin was then trying his best to span the distance between India and Pakistan, despite Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's doubts over the role of Russia, which was supplying arms to Pakistan.
Soon afterwards, the Shaikh was detained for nearly 12 years in South India. He had reportedly asked New Delhi to make good on the terms of the Instrument of Accession. Maharaja Hari Singh had ceded powers of defence, communication and foreign affairs to India.
Since 1993, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference has used all means possible to secure the right of the Kashmiri people to self determination. Its agenda goes far beyond that of the Shaikh or, for that matter, the ruling National Conference. Unfortunately, the Hurriyat is split between hardliners and moderates. Whatever its verdict on the government headed by Omar Abdullah, the Shaikh's grandson, he has made the security forces accountable. The suspension by the army of a major and the removal of a colonel for their roles in contentious incidents is no small achievement. Omar has ordered an enquiry into these encounters and strict orders have been given to the security forces not to violate human rights.
Hurriyat chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has said: "We expected the prime minister to start a bold political initiative on Kashmir but nothing of that sort has come through". Obviously, the Hurriyat has not taken into account Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's message that the government is committed to advancing the negotiation process.

Naïve

The Indian leader wanted the Hurriyat to come on board before his representatives held a series of ministerial-level meetings with Pakistan. It is naïve of the Mirwaiz to demand a public announcement from the government regarding its intentions — dialogue is the only way to hammer out differences.
I think the failure of the Hurriyat is that they prefer bullets to ballots. They revolted when the elections were rigged in Kashmir in 1987. Crossing the border to receive training and returning with weapons was the reaction of angry, helpless people. Violence, as some Hurriyat leaders have belatedly realised, was not an option that could have yielded results. Coming into conflict with the state, which is infinitely stronger, was foolhardy. I am not underestimating the sacrifices that have been made — very few movements in the world have been so determined and so sustained.

Legitimacy

The Hurriyat should have returned to the ballot box after it became apparent that violent agitation was achieving little. Instead, the Hurriyat movement has come to be seen as a challenge to the country's integrity.
The Hurriyat should have tried to gain control of the Jammu and Kashmir assembly. Instead, they boycotted elections. Their argument was that the Indian Election Commission could not be trusted and they proposed supervision by UN observers. No sovereign country could have accepted this. Had the Hurriyat leaders demanded that Indian human-rights activists should be appointed as observers, New Delhi might have consented. But would the Hurriyat have won an election? The Hurriyat's own lack of certainty might have been the deciding factor in its decision not to participate.
The Hurriyat's leaning towards Pakistan has distanced it from India. It is true that a solution in Kashmir is not possible without Islamabad, but the alliance has only created further doubts in the minds of the majority of Indians.
This is the Hurriyat's weakness. Not having the support of the Hindu-majority Jammu and the Budhist-majority Ladakh, the Hurriyat have forfeited the right to speak for the state. It should have at least wooed the Kashmir pandits, many still in camps. Some Hurriyat leaders have realised this, but it may be too late.
The Hurriyat have oscillated between demands for Kashmiri autonomy and independence. Realising that Pakistan is equally opposed to independence, the Hurriyat wants a solution that is acceptable to the people of Kashmir. But that has not been spelled out. The fact that Jammu and Ladakh are nowhere in the picture means that the Hurriyat's demand is only for the valley. This brings the Hurriyat into conflict with Singh, who has said many a time that he has no mandate to change the borders. In any case, the Indian nation would not accept another partition on the basis of religion.
The Hurriyat would do well to wait for India and Pakistan to reach a settlement on Kashmir. As a starting point, it should ask New Delhi to restore the situation to how it was prior to 1952, when Srinagar ceded authority over foreign affairs, defence and communications to India.
 
Kuldip Nayar is a former Indian high commissioner to the United Kingdom and a former Rajya Sabha member.