In fact, it was the Hurriyat Conference which came in for severe criticism at a press conference jointly addressed by the four militants on February 8, in which they expressed their displeasure with the tardy progress being made in resolving the crisis in Kashmir. They not only recommended a rethink on strategy, but also saidthat it was time the movement looked for new leaders to represent its cause. In their signed statement, the four militants—Babber Badar, former chief of the Muslim Janbaz Force, Imran Rahi, former deputy chief of the Hizbul Mujahideen, Loudhi Bilal, former chief of the Al Baraq, and Ghulam Mohiuddin Lone, a senior functionary of the Muslim Mujahideen—alleged: "The APHC lacks initiative and has restricted itself to staging dramas to gain the maximum media attention." They went on to accuse the conference of "lack -ing political vision" and having succumbed to "five-star culture and drivingaround in fancy cars rather than giving a thought to the people of Kashmir".
But what struck a popular chord was criticism of the Hurriyat for imposing its 'har-tal policy' on the people. The APHC is already known as the Hartal Conference among its detractors, given that close to one-third of all working days are lost due to strikes. Points out Azam Inquillabi, a former militant who now runs a political grouping called Mahaz-e-Aazadi: "The Hurriyat has obviously not thought about the people when they call these hartals. Business today in Kashmir is dead. The common man is suffering. How long does the Hurriyat expect them to tolerate this?"
The APHC has tried its best to underplay the charges made by four of its former comrades, dismissing these as trumped up and without any basis. Says APHC Chairman Mirwaiz Molvi Umar Farooq: "It looks like the four of them are working at the behest of the Indian Government. NewDelhi is afraid of the Hurriyat and wants to tarnish its image. If they (the militants) were not happy with us or what we were doing, then they could have discussed it with us. We function democratically. We are open to criticism."
To the discomfiture of the APHC, it now finds that the militants are not alone in their criticism. Inquillabi, one of the pioneers of the militant movement, has been very bitter in his criticism of the Hurriyat (see box). As has Hizbullah chief Abu Junaid, who has described the APHC's contribution to settling the Kashmir issue as 'zero'. And while the Muslim Federation of Jammu has already welcomed the stand taken by the militants, others opposed to the Hurriyat are also expected to rally around the foursome. Observes Inquillabi: "What the four soldiers said is a view that is shared by many others in the movement. In the days to come those who are fed up with the Hurriyat will come together."
But are the four militants, dubbed as 'traitors' by the APHC, relevant in present-day Kashmir? None of them has a mass base, but they are widely respected for the 'sacri-fices' they made for the movement. However, since they spent the last few years in custody, some see them as 'Indian agents'. And the APHC has lost no time in trying to paint the militants black on this count.
According to political observers, what could cause concern to the Hurriyat is the fact that the Hizbul Mujahideen, the most powerful and active militant outfit today, has not come out against Rahi, its former deputy chief, for attacking the APHC. So, while Hizbul has issued a general statement supporting the Hurriyat, much meaning is being read into the silence on Rahi.
Immediately after the allegations made by the four militants hit local papers, the APHC leaders retaliated by pointing out that the statement was a one-time effort which would fade since the authors lack a massbase. However, the militants, who had gone underground after the press conference, struck back on February 15 and issued a statement attacking their critics, particularly Yaseen Malik, chairman of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) and an executive committee member of the APHC. The statement, signed by Rahi, accused Malik of "political and moral bankruptcy" for going against the very people who had introduced him to the militant movement. The JKLF leader was also charged with "playing into the hands of the Indian Government" and making "monthly trips to New Delhi and meeting with the representatives of the enemy".
And so, though they have offered to talk to the Centre, the four militants and their supporters take pains to clarify that talking to the Government does not amount to being "pro-India". Says Inquillabi: "We want to talk to Pakistan and also to the people of Azad Kashmir. We want to talk to everyone. But we have to start. There are people who call the four militants pro-India. They are not. They do not intend to dilute the stand that the Kashmiris want their right to self-determination."
The APHC, on its part, stresses that in the three years of its existence it has done its share to highlight the Kashmir problem at international fora, besides providing a platform for political discussions with New Delhi and Islamabad. Points out APHC executive committee member Qazi Ahadullah of the Jamat-e-Islami: "The IndianGovernment had a valid point when it said that it did not know who to talk to. Ever since the Hurriyat was formed, we have had a forum which can take up the Kashmir cause. The Hurriyat has in that sense a very vital and important role to play."
No one in the Hurriyat attaches any importance to the charge that itsmembers have succumbed to a 'five-star culture' and have lost sight of its goals. Asks Professor Abdul Gani of the Muslim Conference and member of the executive committee of the Hurriyat: "What do they mean by five-star culture? Do they expect us to live in a hutand travel in bullock carts? Many of us have been in public life for years and travel in cars and live in bungalows because we have the resources. It doesn't mean we have compromised."
It is difficult to gauge the support base of either the Hurriyat or their rivals. The man on the street is not sure either of the APHC or the four militants. Neither does he endorse the ubiquitous presence of the Indian Army. But a polarisation has begun, with militant groups which feel that it is time to come to the negotiating table joining hands. The APHC labels them New Delhi's agents. And the anti-Hurriyat camp calls the APHC members agents of Pakistan. As for the Centre, the militants' statement is seen as a 'positive signal'. But whether the development offers a beacon of hope or leads to a dead-end, only the coming weeks will tell.
