Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hard-line Islamic political party in Kashmir breaks links with Pakistan, militants in shock
SulekhaYahooAP ^ | 6.30.02 | MUJTABA ALI AHMAD

Posted on 06/30/2002 6:44:08 PM PDT by swarthyguy

SRINAGAR, India - The most influential and hardline Islamic political party in Indian-controlled Kashmir ( news - web sites) announced on Sunday it had severed ties with Muslim militants and Pakistan, into which it has long proposed a merger of the Himalayan region.

Analysts described the announcement as one of the most significant political developments in years in Kashmir — the cause of five decades of tensions between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan and two wars. It was also a major win for New Delhi.

The reason behind the dramatic turnaround by the Jama'at-e-Islami party was not immediately apparent.

"I want to make it clear that we have no connection with the militants or militancy, particularly with the Hezb-ul-Mujahedeen," Jama'at's president, Ghulam Mohammad Bhat, told The Associated Press.

The Hezb-ul Mujahedeen is the biggest of the dozen militant groups which have been fighting India's military since 1989 to separate Kashmir, or merge it with Pakistan, which also controls part of Kashmir.

An Indian intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Sunday that Jama'at has had close links in the past with the Hezb-ul Mujahedeen, and was suspected of being the militant group's political face. Many Jama'at members have been arrested or detained over the decade on the suspicion that they were working secretly for the Hezb, the official said.

Jama'at also expressed differences with the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, a group of 24 Muslim religious and political groups in Kashmir to which it belongs. The Conference, which opposes Indian control of the region, has boycotted the last elections in the Indian state of Jammu-Kashmir and called for voters to resist going to the polls.

Indian officials have for months asked Kashmiri separatist parties to take part in the elections planned for September or October if they want to prove that they are the true representatives of Kashmiris.

Hurriyat has said it will boycott the upcoming elections, and its leader was not available to comment on Bhat's announcement.

Bhat said that "right now" Jama'at has "no plans of participating in the polls, but anything can happen in the future."

He added that his party would not call for a boycott of the elections, which he said would be "unlawful."

For five decades, Jama'at has struggled politically for a merger of Jammu-Kashmir, India's only Muslim-majority state, into Islamic Pakistan.

The Jama'at is the only one of the hard-line Islamic parties in Jammu-Kashmir that has an organized, disciplined, region-wide network and thousands of members spread across the Kashmir Valley.

Its announcement Sunday appeared to reverse all that the party has stood for, for five decades.

One of the group's longtime senior leaders, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, has publicly described himself as a "proud Pakistani."

However, on Sunday in Srinagar, the summer capital of Jammu-Kashmir state, Bhat seemed to dismiss the party's links with Pakistan.

"There is no mention of Kashmir's accession to Pakistan in our party constitution. We didn't ever even pass a resolution demanding accession since we have been working here," he told reporters.

The ramifications of Bhat's announcement were unclear. Geelani is in a prison in the eastern Indian city of Ranchi, charged under a tough anti-terrorism law.

In the past, groups or leaders in Kashmir have made announcements, only to reverse them later, sometime the next day. At other times, new factions have formed, or other leaders have said the announcement did not reflect the view of the whole organization.

If Jama'at holds to Bhat's announcement, it would be a blow to militant groups in the Kashmir Valley, and raise the possibility of the participation by some separatists in the state elections — a huge public relations victory for India.

India accuses Pakistan of sponsoring the 12-year insurgency, which has left more than 60,000 people dead. Islamabad denies the allegation.

Referring to Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's regime, Bhat said: "There is no dictatorship (allowed) in Islam. The people of Pakistan are trying to install a democratic government in the country."

Musharraf recently proposed changing Pakistan's constitution to grant himself sweeping additional powers.

Indian political scientist Haseeb Ahmad described the news as "the biggest gain for the government of India since the onset of the militancy."

"This is a clear indication that the Jama'at wants to reaccept ... the basic framework of the Indian democratic setup in Kashmir," he told The Associated Press. "This has shaken the edifice on which the secessionist movement rests and is bound to cause more than ripples in the political scenario of Kashmir."


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: india; kashmir; pakistan; southasialist

1 posted on 06/30/2002 6:44:08 PM PDT by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AM2000; Dog Gone; keri; belmont_mark; Aaron_A; mikeIII; Shermy
WTF Ping!
2 posted on 06/30/2002 6:45:32 PM PDT by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy
Heh heh.... Could a few lines from Bush's speach just after 9/11 explain to a small degree, what is going on here? So often, we forget that there is a heck of a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes, often things that may be completely contrary to our public stance, or absent of a public stance altogether. Can anybody with a knowledge of intelligence activity explain whether we have an interest in "causing" something like this? I can only imagine that the reason for the separation is extreme fear... of something.
3 posted on 06/30/2002 6:51:06 PM PDT by bluefish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bluefish
Well, I wouldn't bet too much on Hezb's survival. These people won't just go away quietly. They'll get rid of him, and put someone in power whom they like.
4 posted on 06/30/2002 6:54:13 PM PDT by Pining_4_TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bluefish
More like the fact that on June 26, a delegation from the US embassy in NewDelhi visited Srinagar.
5 posted on 06/30/2002 7:03:24 PM PDT by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy; bluefish
Candid talks from US leaves Hurriyat ‘red-faced’

NEW DELHI, June 30: Hurriyat Conference is said to be under pressure from Western countries including the United States to participate in the coming elections in Jammu and Kashmir.

Recently, an American delegation met Hurriyat Conference leaders including its chairman Abdul Gani Bhat and had an interaction with him during which various issues including participation in the forthcoming polls were discussed.

Sources in the conglomerate said Bhat was in for a shock when the American delegation led by Steve Sobto conveyed that the United States did not recognise any organisation which ran away from a democratic exercise.

Bhat’s attempt to justify their non-participation in the elections was countered by the delegation which made it emphatically clear that the Hurriyat Conference should prove its representative character, the sources said.

The amalgam has been receiving similar indications from other Western countries including European Union and Britain.

The delegation’s talks with senior leaders have left the second rung Hurriyat men "disheartened", who view these as indicative of depletion of support to the amalgam.

The US delegation also met Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front vice-president Javed Ahmed Mir and Mirwaiz Umer Farooq and conveyed similar views to both of them, the sources said.

The Hurriyat Conference’s move of forming their own Election Commission has failed to rouse any keen interest in international community.

The challenge thrown by the new National Conference president Omar Abdullah for a battle of ballots has also created an uneasy calm within the conglomerate as barring Umer Farooq and fire-brand Jamaat-e-Islami leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, few Hurriyat leaders are regarded as having a constituency to support them in any electoral battle.

Moreover, the recent exposure of these leaders receiving foreign funds has also put the amalgam on the backfoot.

Another worry dogging the Hurriyat Conference leaders is the formation of a "third front".

Though Hurriyat chairman had claimed that the amalgam was "unmoved by third or fourth front", efforts to break the new amalgam had already been launched, the sources said.

National Front leader Nayeem Khan, who had been trying hard for a membership in Hurriyat, is likely to be inducted in the amalgam, the sources said.

The arrest of second rung leadership of Hurriyat Conference had also increased the problems for the amalgam leaders.

Several of these leaders, presently lodged in jail, have expressed their annoyance against their executive leaders as none of them had been able to raise a voice against their arrests. They have also expressed desire to face the elections. (PTI)

6 posted on 06/30/2002 7:12:10 PM PDT by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy
I'd not be too quick to judge this a positive development for India, as it sounds more like an anti-Musharif move, based on his not being Islamic enough. We may be seeing the building of a base from which he can be moved against. I'd guess that Saudi money is moving with Jama'at.
7 posted on 06/30/2002 7:14:03 PM PDT by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: per loin
Or to put it more simply, somebody got bribed
8 posted on 06/30/2002 7:27:45 PM PDT by bloggerjohn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: *southasia_list
.
9 posted on 06/30/2002 7:53:22 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy
It may just be a realization that they haven't benefited much from Pakistan's "moral support" and, given Pakistan's reputation today, they'd be better off distancing themselves from it.
10 posted on 06/30/2002 8:13:22 PM PDT by mikeIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy
I'm going to speculate here, because I don't know much about these Islamic political parties in Kashmir, but I'm not sure this is 100% positive news for India. Maybe 99%.

A decision to no longer seek union with Pakistan is GREAT news for India, because it takes away part of the motivation of Pakistan to keep forcing the issue. That, along with Pakistan's apparent cutoff of support for infiltrators, lessens the chances of these two countries going to war over Kashmir.

But, I don't see anything in this statement that indicates acceptance of Indian rule. This may be the start of a campaign for Kashmiri independence, which still is a significant threat to India.

This is a major development, and it will be interesting to see where it leads.

11 posted on 07/01/2002 5:35:18 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
OK, fair enough, but participating in elections in kashmir is a defacto acceptance of indian rule. There never have and probably will never be elections in pakistani kashmir.

The contrast will be clear in the fall.

The jockeying and political intrigues will be interesting for us junkies.


12 posted on 07/01/2002 7:56:34 AM PDT by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy
I hope they do participate in the elections, although they haven't agreed to do so yet.

I don't really have an opinion as to the final resolution of Kashmir, although independence might be a good compromise if India and Pakistan both agreed. But it needs to be resolved through political and diplomatic means, not militarily, and certainly not because of terrorism.

13 posted on 07/01/2002 8:17:16 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bluefish; swarthyguy
From Bush's speech -
"The choice here is stark and simple, the Bible says, "I have set before you life and death, therefore choose life." The time has arrived for everyone in this conflict to choose peace and hope --- and life."

Guess they're getting the message about their lives.

14 posted on 07/01/2002 10:38:51 AM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson