OF YASIN MALIK & COLLECTIVE CONSCIENCE BY DR.JAVID IQBAL

OF YASIN MALIK & COLLECTIVE CONSCIENCE BY DR.JAVID IQBAL

http://kashmirdiasporaa.blogspot.com/2013/02/of-yasin-malik-collective-conscience-by_21.html

It is surfacing and surfacing fast that collective conscience is working up an argument against Yasin Malik. There is already a questionnaire in ‘Indian Today’ in an effort to build up the case…it reads: 

5 REASONS TO CONFISCATE YASIN MALIK'S PASSPORT:
• 1. Sharing stage with India’s most wanted terrorist Hafiz Saeed
• 2. Going on hunger strike over Afzal Guru's hanging, that too in Pakistan
• 3. Making anti-national statements, that too in Pakistan
• 4. Visa violation since visa was issued for private visit
• 5. Killed 4 IAF personnel and Doordarshan director in cold blood  & it asks: What do you think the Government should do? Tell us what you think? There are two propositions put forward by India Today: Impound passport or Impound passport and punish under relevant law.

Question number one: Yasin stated in an answer to Arnab Goswami—the ring master of collective conscience, that he had invited none as he went on a hunger strike in protest against Afzal Guru’s hanging. Yasin did not share the stage with Hafiz Saeed. On the contrary, Hafiz Saeed on his own joined the stage held by Yasin. The boot is on the other foot. The manner in which the question has been put exhibits how malicious is the intent.

Yasin asked a counter question—why no objection was raised when he met Hafiz Saeed in 2006, a meeting that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was apprised of? An answer is implicit in what Yasin asks. Peace birds were flying across the divide to tame down the militancy and provide peace a chance. Pertinently didn’t GOI attempt peace parleys with militants—Majid Dar group of HM to mention one that was overt. That it aborted does not rule out the proposition that parleys overt and covert have been held from time to time, in an effort to work out a peaceful end to the armed conflict.

There is no denying the fact that Yasin was an armed militant--the commander of armed wing of JKLF. He might have carried out militant attacks in which lives could have been lost.  Question number five that he killed 4 IAF personnel and Doordarshan director in cold blood is a clear demonstration of handing over a verdict before holding the jury. Even if it is presumed to be a fact, why was Yasin let off for two decades. And if he was willfully let off, why book him now. Indian State has a lot to answer…it stands to answer, rather than ask questions.

Sumntra Bose notes in his book [Kashmir Roots of Conflict, Path to Peace, page: 130] “in mid 1994, Yasin Malik freed after four years in prison, declared an indefinite JKLF ceasefire, partly what remained of JKLF cadre. He was not particularly successful in that goal....The middle of 1994 was nonetheless a political turning point in the Azadi movement, as pioneer militant organization laid down its arms."  The turning point was capitalized by the Indian State. Yasin Malik interacted with Prime Ministers—Atal Behari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh. Why was he allowed such an exalted intercourse, if charges were as grave as made out in the questionnaire?

Question number two and three: Going on hunger strike over Afzal Guru's hanging and making anti-national statements--that too in Pakistan. Yasin Malik has done nothing new. On countless visits in the past, he has put forth the Kashmir narrative and Kashmir is the main party in a recognized dispute. It may not be taken as anti-Indian or Pro-Pak stance. If the Indian state officials can go and discuss Kashmir in Pakistan with Pakistani officials, what is wrong in Yasin Malik talking about Kashmir in Pakistan? If Kashmir issue is off the Indian agenda, what makes her Home Minister state on the floor of Lok Sabha that Kashmir is a unique problem needing a unique solution? Hasn’t P Chidambaram said that? Or have not the Kashmir resistance leaders held parleys with Indian leadership, as well as Pakistani leadership on countless occasions, stating from Sheikh Abdullah’s parleys in 1964. Question four—visa violation as visa was issued for a private visit—Yasin Malik has to be answerable to Pakistan if asked, as that state has issued the visa.

Over the last few months, I interacted with Yasin a couple of times, as I wanted answers regarding his views on Hurriyat [M] visit to Pakistan. Before putting in a column or two, apart from Yasin, I interacted with Geelani and Prof. Bhat. He expressed grave concern that Indian civil society did not live up to the promises they made, as JKLF laid down arms in 1994.

The peace birds of Indian civil society carried promises from the Indian State. Promises that the state would deliver, in case resistance assumes a peaceful path, however deed did not match the word. The soft face of the Indian state has had ample demonstrations. As Sheikh Abdullah was incarcerated, Mirdula Sarabhai assumed the role of soft face of the Indian state. There is a long line of Kuldeep Nayar’s, Rajinder Sachar’s. And there are witnesses to attest that their ventures had official blessings.

Questions galore, it might be high time to sit across and provide answers—the answer cannot but be a lasting sustainable solution of ‘K’ issue.

Yaar Zinda, Sohbat Baqi [Reunion is subordinate to survival] (Feedback on: iqbal.javid46@gmail.com)