Exchange
of views not same as dialogue: Prof Bhat
Arjimand
Hussain Talib
SRINAGAR,
Kashmir: The Chairman of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, Prof
Abdul Gani Bhat, has a political philosophy of South Asia which sees
Kashmir as a crucial link for bridging up the historical gulf between
India and Pakistan. Bhat is a relaxed man, 
and
seemingly confident that the upcoming elections in the State would
face a general boycott. In an exclusive interview to South Asia Tribune,
Prof Bhat talks of the dialogue initiative undertaken by Ram Jethmalani-led
Kashmir Committee and Hurriyat's response to the upcoming Assembly
polls in the State.
Excerpts.
Q:
You are about to enter into the second round of talks with the Jethmalani-led
Kashmir Committee. There has already been a veritable deadlock in
the first round. How do you visualise the outcome of the talks?
A: You
see, there is a growing realization in the world today that disputes,
like that of Kashmir, threatening world peace must be addressed with
a view to finding a lasting solution. Jethmalani's initiative would
have to be viewed in that larger perspective. Merely talking is not
important. A wrong impression has gathered that Jethmalani's agenda
is election centric so the talks have reached a deadlock. That is
not true. Only elections are not on Ram's agenda. They are a part
of it, which in fact we have rejected for the simple reason that to
be a part of election means to accept Indian constitution. And how
can we accept Indian constitution? Since we represent people's defiance
of that constitution, our deviation would completely cease our future.
Q:
But Jethmalani at the outset of his initiative at a secret meeting
in Jammu is said to have advocated a solution to Kashmir issue within
the constitution of India.
A: Well,
the fact is that we are only exchanging views. That does not necessarily
mean a dialogue. I would like to assure the people of Kashmir we are
not going to withdraw from our basic standpoint. There is no question
of that.
Q:
But this time round the APHC has not issued an explicit call for boycott
of elections?
A: When
we say "no" to participation the message goes to our people
that it is as good as our saying we are to boycott this meaningless
exercise. It is true we have not launched a door to door campaign
this time (for ensuring a boycott) but strategies are always worked
out with reference to the prevailing situation.
Q:
But why not use explicit terminology this time?
A: This
is not true. We have stated sufficiently and empathetically that there
has to be a "no" to participation in elections. And we are
confident that every Kashmiri understands that well. Let me tell you,
street wisdom in Kashmir is far sharper than even of those who are
directly involved with politics. We are not worried about anything.
We know the beats of people's hearts here.
Q:
There is a feeling that there is international pressure on the APHC
to participate in the coming elections. How far is that true?
A: This
feeling is totally misplaced. Nobody is pressurizing us. But the fact
remains that diplomatic missions, journalists and others who visit
us do ask questions about our stand of boycotting elections, the possible
voter turn out, etc. Representatives of certain governments have asked
us whether we do not see elections as a first step towards the resolution
of Kashmir dispute but our stand is consistent: no elections can solve
Kashmir issue unless people's aspirations about the political future
of Kashmir are addressed. After all, that alone can guarantee peace
and stability in this region.
Q:
On the question of your talks with Jethmalani although Islamabad has
down played its importance, there is a perceptible unease there. On
the other hand some militant groups have issued warnings to you not
to enter into any dialogue with New Delhi. How do you see these developments?
A: I
know many people are skeptical about talks with New Delhi. After all
talks since more than fifty years have produced no solution. As a
representative organization, APHC should have the capacity to talk
to everyone. The present international environment is such that talks
are inevitable. If you adopt a negative approach towards that, you
stand to lose. But if you are positive about that you are in a win
win situation.
Q:
That itself suggests there is an implicit pressure for talks.
A: This
is not pressure. This is a realization. A realization that talks on
Kashmir are the only way to save South Asian region from a nuclear
catastrophe. After all, international community is concerned with
the tensions here.
Q:
What about Pakistan?
A: We
are sure Islamabad will understand that there has to be a beginning
somewhere. And if New Delhi agrees to hold meaningful talks, Pakistan
has to be involved sooner or later.
Q:
But India is in no mood to talk of the political future of Kashmir.
It has even rejected the demand for restoration of autonomy.
A: Well,
international community is there to see to that. We have responded
positively to talks offer. We are ready to hold negotiations.
Q:
The international community would be watching the coming elections
very keenly. There are voices saying that this election would be a
kind of referendum on the credibility of your claim of Kashmiris'
representatives....
A:
That is absurd. Senior US officials as well as that of the EU have
said that elections are no substitute for a solution to Kashmir.
An ordinary student of political science would tell how vast difference
there is between elections for governance and referendum for determining
political future of a nation.
