Between a rock and a hard place

Why for the secessionist organisations and the militant groups, the new government is hardly good news.

IN the next few weeks, top All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani should be out of the Ranchi jail. And then, his real problems will begin.

Geelani's dilemma is emblematic of the problems confronting secessionist forces within and outside the APHC today. The State government's decision not to use the Prevention of Terrorism Act means that money-laundering charges against him are unlikely to be pursued. His colleague in the APHC, the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front's (JKLF) Yasin Malik, is also likely to head back to Srinagar. Both will owe their freedom to Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed. Should they accept his regime, however, they will be preparing the ground for the euthanisation of their own political careers.

Sayeed's campaign tapped much of the political space that the APHC has for long had command of. In many areas the People's Democratic Party (PDP) used cadre drawn from the ranks of APHC constituents like the Jamaat-e-Islami. Many ground-level PDP workers make no secret of the fact that they see the formation of this government as one small step in a larger struggle for "liberation from India". All of this should make the APHC happy. Its problem, however, is that the rise of the PDP leaves it with no real agenda. It has, therefore, extended a cautious welcome to the major elements of the PDP-Congress(I) alliance's Common Minimum Programme, and at once insisted that the formation of a government will not address what they describe as the "real problem" of Jammu and Kashmir.

Nonetheless, the APHC is aware that doing nothing is a recipe for irrelevance. On what it ought to be doing, however, the formation is less clear. APHC chairperson Abdul Gani Bhat spent his time in New Delhi even as the Congress(I)-PDP dialogue was on, seeking a dialogue with the Pakistan High Commission on the post-election situation. As only the Deputy High Commissioner was available, no discussions could take place. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, for his part, threw his weight behind the Ram Jethmalani-led Kashmir Committee's plans to hold a dialogue with "certain elements" in Pakistan after a Prime Minister took office in that country. Farooq argued that such a dialogue would be a step towards the realisation of the APHC's long-standing demand for a dialogue with Kashmiri leaders on the other side of the Line of Control.

But not all those within the APHC stand to gain from hitching their horses to the Kashmir Committee. The Kashmir Committee announced its plans on October 28, after holding discussions with Bhat. Five days earlier, however, the JKLF rejected the idea. The Kashmir Committee, a spokesperson said, had no right to speak for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. In 1998, he pointed out, the organisation had even attacked the then-Pakistan Foreign Secretary Samshad Haider for arrogating that right to himself in the course of India-Pakistan talks. Underlying this point of principle is a pragmatic political concern. Malik and Geelani, since they have been in jail, have had no role in the Committee. Neither is keen to see a platform that is perceived as being close to Bhat and Farooq take the initiative in a dialogue that would exclude them.

YASIN MALIK, meanwhile, has other problems to deal with. On October 31, JKLF cadre led by a dissident, Iqbal Gandroo, expelled him, and his second-in-command Javed Mir, from the organisation. Gandroo, who now claims to be the head of the JKLF, has allied himself with breakaway elements of the APHC, led by Nisar Ahmad Sabzwari. Speaking to journalists on November 1, Sabzwari said he represented upwards of 12 political and armed organisations including top formations such as the Jaish-e-Mohammad, the Lashkar-e-Toiba and al-Jihad. His dialogue partners in these groups, Sabzwari claimed, were ethnic-Kashmiri cadre who now wished to chart their own political destiny. The new "parallel Hurriyat", he said, would take Sayeed's words at face value, and was willing to start negotiations with the new government. "The time for the gun is now over," he said, "and we must achieve liberation through dialogue."

No one is certain how credible the group's claims are, but the fact is that there has been a good amount of subterranean movement within terrorist groups. While organisations like the Lashkar, the Jaish and al-Umar were quick to condemn the PDP as a puppet government, the Hizbul Mujahideen took time to do so. Some observers believe that was because many of its local commanders have been supporting the PDP, hoping to have a say in any future dialogue with New Delhi.

Abdul Rashid Pir, the Hizb's central division commander who operates under the alias Shardar Pir, is believed, correctly or otherwise, to have had close contact with senior PDP figures in the course of their election campaign. Pir is thought to have acted on behalf of Amir Khan, who is now a member of the Hizb's Muzaffarabad-based Central Command Council.

Whatever the truth about the Hizbul Mujahideen's relationship with the PDP might be on record both formations deny that anything of the kind exists it has provoked a minor rebellion among hardline figures in the terrorist group. On October 21, its Lolab area commander, who operates under the name Muneeb-ul-Islam, left the organisation to join the more directly Pakistan-controlled Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen. Muneeb-ul-Islam complained that the Jamaat-e-Islami's Amir (supreme leader) Ghulam Hassan Bhat did not consider the armed struggle to be a jehad. He added that although Hizbul Mujahideen leader Mohammad Yousuf Shah considered it to be a jehad he did nothing to punish deserters or meet "the Mujahideen's war needs." The fact that the Lolab terrorist made public his dissent suggests he had at least tacit support from Pakistan's intelligence establishment.

Sayeed is sitting pretty for the moment. By taking a soft line on secessionist organisations, he can consolidate his hold over his constituency, and keep lines of communication open to armed groups as well. As long as the APHC sticks to its rejection of the mainstream democratic process, it does not threaten the PDP in any manner. The real problem will emerge if the organisation is ever engaged in a dialogue with New Delhi or if any of its elements chose to join in electoral contest. Today's unquiet allies could well then be transformed into bitter enemies.