What's new

LeT denies involvement in Shujaat’s assassination

BHarwana

MODERATOR
Joined
Sep 24, 2016
Messages
24,825
Reaction score
20
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) chief Mehmood Shah on Sunday slammed Indian media for spreading “propaganda” that senior journalist and Rising Kashmir editor Shujaat Bukhari was killed by the outfit’s commander Naveed Jatt.

“This is nothing but a blatant lie. India media endorses its agencies and that is the very reason it strives to hide their vicious activities,” LeT spokesperson Dr Abdullah Ghaznavi in a statement quoted Shah as saying.

Let chief also warned senior BJP leader Lal Singh for threatening Kashmiri journalists saying if Kashmiris will start threatening the likes of Lal Singh, they will get sleepless nights.

Paying tributes to its commander ‘Abu Bakr’ Shakir Ahmed and his comrades killed in an encounter in south Kashmir’s Kulgam district, LeT chief said Indian forces are facing “severe frustration” and have opted to activate NSG commandos.

“India has realized that it has failed to achieve any success in sustaining its illegal occupation for the last seven decades, and won’t be able to sustain it in future too,”

“The voices of innocent Kashmiris are being silenced by severe atrocities, teargas shelling, and point-blank firings,” Mehmood Shah said while strongly condemning the forces’ “atrocities” on people in Kulgam.

“Indian forces have completely lost their senses. They are mentally frustrated,” LeT chief said adding that the human rights organizations and the international community must take notice of “this terrorism”.

He offered his good wishes to the injured and said that India will have to pay for “this crime”. “We are proud of our brave people. Their utterly support to their brave sons is exemplary,” he said.

Lashkar chief added that “the pure blood of martyrs and their sacrifices will not go in vain”. “There will be hundreds to pick up a fallen gun. Our fight is for the truth and justice,” he said.

He said India has committed severe human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir. “The United Nations is of the same opinion today. If United Nations is biased on the Indian narrative then India endorses it but if the world body exposes the dark side of India, the New Delhi protests,” he said. (GNS)




https://kashmirlife.net/let-denies-involvement-in-shujaats-assassination-178568/
 
lol, world believes the words of terrorists. Next ISIS will issue a statement that they dint kill anyone.

https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/our-own-killed-lone-maulvi-farooq-not-india-bhat/707116

Our Own Killed Lone, Maulvi Farooq, Not India: Bhat
SRINAGAR
INCREASE TEXT SIZE
Exonerating the Indian forces of long-held allegations of assassinating prominent Hurriyat leaders- Mirwaiz Maulvi Muhammad Farooq, Abdul Gani Lone and JKLF ideologue Prof. Abdul Ahad Wani, leader of the Hurriyat Conference's moderate faction Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat admitted for the first time today, that the killings were actually 'an insider's job'.

Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat, who was the chairman of the Hurriyat Conference when it was split into the hardline and moderate factions, categorically stated at a seminar on Sunday that the security forces had played no role in the killings of Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq, Abdul Gani Lone as well as Prof. Abdul Ahad Wani.

"Lone sahib, Mirwaiz Farooq and Prof. Wani were not killed by the army or the police. They were targeted by our own people. The story is a long one, but we have to tell the truth," he asserted, stopping short of naming any terrorist group which killed them or delving into the circumstances under which the murders took place.

Asked to identify the killers, Bhat said, "What is the need to identify them.... They are already identified."

The separatist leader was addressing a seminar on 'Role of intellectuals in the Kashmir movement' organised at a local hotel by JKLF chairman Muhammad Yasin Malik to commemorate Wani's death anniversary. The slain Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq's son, present Hurriyat Conference chairman Umar Farooq also did not contradict Bhat when he spoke at the seminar after him.

Speaking at the meet, Bhat, a professor of Persian at Sopore Degree College, said: "If you want to free the people of Kashmir from sentimentalism bordering on insanity, you have to speak the truth. Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto once said that sometimes truth escapes the mouth. Here I am letting it out." He was also forthcoming in saying that the present movement against India was started by "us killing our intellectuals".

He added: "Wherever we found an intellectual, we ended up killing him. Let us ask ourselves: Was Prof Wani a martyr of brilliance or a martyr of rivalry?"

Mr Bhat, considered a moderate separatist, also seemed to be criticisng hardline leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, when he said: “There was a hartal for five months and 112 people died. And at the end of it there is nothing by way of achievement. This is what happens when there is no thinking, no strategy. If you want to rid people of Kashmir of sentimentalism bordering on insanity, you have to speak the truth.”

Mr Bhat also criticised those who have been politicisng the deaths of Kashmiris: “These leaders still hail these sacrifices as if their only purpose is to get people killed... for the sake of it.”

Taking potshots at the rival Hurriyat group for adopting double standards, he said: "When we entered into talks with New Delhi, we were accused of being kafir (non-Muslim), and when you (the hardliners) talk you get away scot-free. This dichotomy in Kashmir politics should end."

Bhat also refused to be a part of any unity process between the separatist groups initiated by Umar Farooq. He avowed he would not be associated with any such move that would mean the "hegemony or aggrandisement of any person", making an oblique reference to Geelani.

Commenting on the five-month long protests and strike which jolted Kashmir in 2010, he said the Kashmiris did not achieve anything through this, adding that the local intellectuals refrained from writing on the issue.

Bhat, also expressed doubts if Pakistan would ever fight a war over Kashmir with India, "It is unlikely as both the nations understand its consequences." He also advocated against an armed movement against India in Kashmir, saying: "It will not have support from any quarter. What next? We should do the talking," he said.

Spelling out the benefits, he said negotiation was an art and the right way to move forward.

Bhat said that his brother Mohammad Sultan Bhat also fell to the bullets of those espousing the separatist cause.

"I had said this then and I am saying it now. There is no ambiguity or confusion in my mind," he said.

Reactions to Bhat's Remarks

Other moderate Hurriyat leaders chose to maintain a studied silence on Bhat's remarks.

Geelani refused to comment on the statements made by the former Chairman of the undivided Hurriyat Conference.

"I have nothing to say about their remarks," Geelani told PTI.

CPI(M) state secretary M Y Tarigami said Bhat's statement was "revealing" and the incidents need credible investigation.

"A credible investigation should be carried out so that responsibility for the killings is fixed," Tarigami said.

Sajjad Gani Lone, the youngest son of the slain leader, had blamed Geelani for the killing but retracted his statement few years later.

Jammu and Kashmir's Director General of Police Kuldeep Khoda said that "the person involved in the killing of Mirwaiz Farooq is also buried in the same 'martyrs' graveyard' where the senior Mirwaiz was laid to rest".

"So this explains a lot. The killer and the killed are both declared as martyrs by them," Khoda said.

A senior Hurriyat leader, who did not wish to be named, said there was nothing new in Bhat's remarks.

"Bhat has made the same speech in 'Azad Jammu and Kashmir' (Azad Kashmir) Assembly five years ago," the leader said.

Bilal Lone and Mirwaiz chose not to react to the statement.

Sources in the Hurriyat said that the leaders of the amalgam will maintain a "meaningful" silence over the remarks.

The moderate faction of the Hurriyat is unhappy with the way Geelani had handled the recent summer unrest in the Valley as many of them questioned the tactics of strikes and stone-pelting during a seminar yesterday.

State Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ali Mohammad Sagar described the admission by separatists as a "good development".

"It has taken them very long to admit the reality but it is better late than never," Sagar said.

He said the separatist leaders have to be "realistic" if they are serious about resolution of the Kashmir issue and should stop treating the mainstream parties as "untouchables".

"We have to sit together if Kashmir issue has to be resolved permanently. The separatists should support and strengthen the efforts of Chief Minister Omar Abdullah in this direction," he said.

Condemning the statement, radical women's outfit Dukhtaran-e-Millat said, "Bhat and Lone are out to sabotage the ongoing movement."

"The true leadership of Kashmir is put behind the bars and they are not even allowed to put forth their point of view before the people. Holding seminars is a far cry," acting chairperson of Dukhtaran Rifat Fatima said in a statement.

Kashmiris are now educated enough to differentiate between the genuine leaders and impostors, she said.

I May Suffer But Let Me Not Seal My Mouth: Bhat

After his remarks, Bhat said he might have to suffer but will not seal his mouth.

"By recognizing this stark reality, I am afraid I may also suffer, but let me suffer, let me not seal my mouth," Bhat told PTI.

The Hurriyat leader said he was determined to speak the truth irrespective of whether others do so or not. "I have said what I have said and I stand by it," he said.

In response to a question about unity efforts among the separatists, Bhat said it was "irrelevant" at the moment and that he would take a decision about it in his individual capacity if such a development takes place.

"I have never been part of and never will be part of any meaningless exercise. Why are you flogging us with the unity lash," the Hurriyat leader said.

Kashmir has Gained Nothing in Past Six Decades: Yasin

Earlier, JKLF chairman Muhammad Yasin Malik, in his address, said Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah was the tallest leader Kashmir produced in the past 63 years. But added the Kashmir conflict dwarfed even the Sheikh.

"This holds true for all of us. Not one among the present crop of leaders should think that we are above Kashmir," he said.

Malik felt that in the past six decades, the Kashmiris had gained nothing, "We have given sacrifices and gone through bitter experiences. But there has been no achievement," he said.

Local Kashmiris as well as secessionists have long held the security forces responsible for the killings of Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq, Wani and Lone, slain in three separate incidents.

Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq was murdered in cold blood on May 21, 1990 when unidentified gunmen barged into his Srinagar residence and assassinated him. Later, more than 60 people were killed when CRPF personnel fired upon his funeral procession near Islamia College in Srinagar. The firing on the mourners reinforced the ordinary Kashmiri's suspicions, aired by the separatists, that that government was behind Mirwaiz's killing.

A TADA court, however, jailed former militant Muhammad Ayub Dar last year for the killing. The CBI charge sheet said Dar, along with two other terrorists, shot the Mirwaiz. Its charge sheet named five Hizbul commanders also.

Wani was killed on December 31, 1993, by unknown gunmen. He was a professor of law in Kashmir University and an advocate of the JKLF's views. The academic was in the vicinity of the Hazratbal shrine en route to the university when he was shot.

Moderate Hurriyat Conference leader Lone, the father of Sajjad (the first separatist leader to stand in a general election) and Bilal, was killed on May 21 in 2002. He was gunned down by unidentified assailants at a rally to mark the death anniversary of Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq at Eidgah ground in old Srinagar city.

The leader was fired upon seconds before the ceremony was to end. Bhat, then the Hurriyat Conference chairman, was also present at the rally. No charge sheet was filed either in the case of Wani's or Lone's killings.
 
lol, world believes the words of terrorists. Next ISIS will issue a statement that they dint kill anyone.

https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/our-own-killed-lone-maulvi-farooq-not-india-bhat/707116

Our Own Killed Lone, Maulvi Farooq, Not India: Bhat
SRINAGAR
INCREASE TEXT SIZE
Exonerating the Indian forces of long-held allegations of assassinating prominent Hurriyat leaders- Mirwaiz Maulvi Muhammad Farooq, Abdul Gani Lone and JKLF ideologue Prof. Abdul Ahad Wani, leader of the Hurriyat Conference's moderate faction Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat admitted for the first time today, that the killings were actually 'an insider's job'.

Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat, who was the chairman of the Hurriyat Conference when it was split into the hardline and moderate factions, categorically stated at a seminar on Sunday that the security forces had played no role in the killings of Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq, Abdul Gani Lone as well as Prof. Abdul Ahad Wani.

"Lone sahib, Mirwaiz Farooq and Prof. Wani were not killed by the army or the police. They were targeted by our own people. The story is a long one, but we have to tell the truth," he asserted, stopping short of naming any terrorist group which killed them or delving into the circumstances under which the murders took place.

Asked to identify the killers, Bhat said, "What is the need to identify them.... They are already identified."

The separatist leader was addressing a seminar on 'Role of intellectuals in the Kashmir movement' organised at a local hotel by JKLF chairman Muhammad Yasin Malik to commemorate Wani's death anniversary. The slain Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq's son, present Hurriyat Conference chairman Umar Farooq also did not contradict Bhat when he spoke at the seminar after him.

Speaking at the meet, Bhat, a professor of Persian at Sopore Degree College, said: "If you want to free the people of Kashmir from sentimentalism bordering on insanity, you have to speak the truth. Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto once said that sometimes truth escapes the mouth. Here I am letting it out." He was also forthcoming in saying that the present movement against India was started by "us killing our intellectuals".

He added: "Wherever we found an intellectual, we ended up killing him. Let us ask ourselves: Was Prof Wani a martyr of brilliance or a martyr of rivalry?"

Mr Bhat, considered a moderate separatist, also seemed to be criticisng hardline leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, when he said: “There was a hartal for five months and 112 people died. And at the end of it there is nothing by way of achievement. This is what happens when there is no thinking, no strategy. If you want to rid people of Kashmir of sentimentalism bordering on insanity, you have to speak the truth.”

Mr Bhat also criticised those who have been politicisng the deaths of Kashmiris: “These leaders still hail these sacrifices as if their only purpose is to get people killed... for the sake of it.”

Taking potshots at the rival Hurriyat group for adopting double standards, he said: "When we entered into talks with New Delhi, we were accused of being kafir (non-Muslim), and when you (the hardliners) talk you get away scot-free. This dichotomy in Kashmir politics should end."

Bhat also refused to be a part of any unity process between the separatist groups initiated by Umar Farooq. He avowed he would not be associated with any such move that would mean the "hegemony or aggrandisement of any person", making an oblique reference to Geelani.

Commenting on the five-month long protests and strike which jolted Kashmir in 2010, he said the Kashmiris did not achieve anything through this, adding that the local intellectuals refrained from writing on the issue.

Bhat, also expressed doubts if Pakistan would ever fight a war over Kashmir with India, "It is unlikely as both the nations understand its consequences." He also advocated against an armed movement against India in Kashmir, saying: "It will not have support from any quarter. What next? We should do the talking," he said.

Spelling out the benefits, he said negotiation was an art and the right way to move forward.

Bhat said that his brother Mohammad Sultan Bhat also fell to the bullets of those espousing the separatist cause.

"I had said this then and I am saying it now. There is no ambiguity or confusion in my mind," he said.

Reactions to Bhat's Remarks

Other moderate Hurriyat leaders chose to maintain a studied silence on Bhat's remarks.

Geelani refused to comment on the statements made by the former Chairman of the undivided Hurriyat Conference.

"I have nothing to say about their remarks," Geelani told PTI.

CPI(M) state secretary M Y Tarigami said Bhat's statement was "revealing" and the incidents need credible investigation.

"A credible investigation should be carried out so that responsibility for the killings is fixed," Tarigami said.

Sajjad Gani Lone, the youngest son of the slain leader, had blamed Geelani for the killing but retracted his statement few years later.

Jammu and Kashmir's Director General of Police Kuldeep Khoda said that "the person involved in the killing of Mirwaiz Farooq is also buried in the same 'martyrs' graveyard' where the senior Mirwaiz was laid to rest".

"So this explains a lot. The killer and the killed are both declared as martyrs by them," Khoda said.

A senior Hurriyat leader, who did not wish to be named, said there was nothing new in Bhat's remarks.

"Bhat has made the same speech in 'Azad Jammu and Kashmir' (Azad Kashmir) Assembly five years ago," the leader said.

Bilal Lone and Mirwaiz chose not to react to the statement.

Sources in the Hurriyat said that the leaders of the amalgam will maintain a "meaningful" silence over the remarks.

The moderate faction of the Hurriyat is unhappy with the way Geelani had handled the recent summer unrest in the Valley as many of them questioned the tactics of strikes and stone-pelting during a seminar yesterday.

State Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ali Mohammad Sagar described the admission by separatists as a "good development".

"It has taken them very long to admit the reality but it is better late than never," Sagar said.

He said the separatist leaders have to be "realistic" if they are serious about resolution of the Kashmir issue and should stop treating the mainstream parties as "untouchables".

"We have to sit together if Kashmir issue has to be resolved permanently. The separatists should support and strengthen the efforts of Chief Minister Omar Abdullah in this direction," he said.

Condemning the statement, radical women's outfit Dukhtaran-e-Millat said, "Bhat and Lone are out to sabotage the ongoing movement."

"The true leadership of Kashmir is put behind the bars and they are not even allowed to put forth their point of view before the people. Holding seminars is a far cry," acting chairperson of Dukhtaran Rifat Fatima said in a statement.

Kashmiris are now educated enough to differentiate between the genuine leaders and impostors, she said.

I May Suffer But Let Me Not Seal My Mouth: Bhat

After his remarks, Bhat said he might have to suffer but will not seal his mouth.

"By recognizing this stark reality, I am afraid I may also suffer, but let me suffer, let me not seal my mouth," Bhat told PTI.

The Hurriyat leader said he was determined to speak the truth irrespective of whether others do so or not. "I have said what I have said and I stand by it," he said.

In response to a question about unity efforts among the separatists, Bhat said it was "irrelevant" at the moment and that he would take a decision about it in his individual capacity if such a development takes place.

"I have never been part of and never will be part of any meaningless exercise. Why are you flogging us with the unity lash," the Hurriyat leader said.

Kashmir has Gained Nothing in Past Six Decades: Yasin

Earlier, JKLF chairman Muhammad Yasin Malik, in his address, said Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah was the tallest leader Kashmir produced in the past 63 years. But added the Kashmir conflict dwarfed even the Sheikh.

"This holds true for all of us. Not one among the present crop of leaders should think that we are above Kashmir," he said.

Malik felt that in the past six decades, the Kashmiris had gained nothing, "We have given sacrifices and gone through bitter experiences. But there has been no achievement," he said.

Local Kashmiris as well as secessionists have long held the security forces responsible for the killings of Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq, Wani and Lone, slain in three separate incidents.

Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq was murdered in cold blood on May 21, 1990 when unidentified gunmen barged into his Srinagar residence and assassinated him. Later, more than 60 people were killed when CRPF personnel fired upon his funeral procession near Islamia College in Srinagar. The firing on the mourners reinforced the ordinary Kashmiri's suspicions, aired by the separatists, that that government was behind Mirwaiz's killing.

A TADA court, however, jailed former militant Muhammad Ayub Dar last year for the killing. The CBI charge sheet said Dar, along with two other terrorists, shot the Mirwaiz. Its charge sheet named five Hizbul commanders also.

Wani was killed on December 31, 1993, by unknown gunmen. He was a professor of law in Kashmir University and an advocate of the JKLF's views. The academic was in the vicinity of the Hazratbal shrine en route to the university when he was shot.

Moderate Hurriyat Conference leader Lone, the father of Sajjad (the first separatist leader to stand in a general election) and Bilal, was killed on May 21 in 2002. He was gunned down by unidentified assailants at a rally to mark the death anniversary of Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq at Eidgah ground in old Srinagar city.

The leader was fired upon seconds before the ceremony was to end. Bhat, then the Hurriyat Conference chairman, was also present at the rally. No charge sheet was filed either in the case of Wani's or Lone's killings.
those " terrorists" wont kill someone without getting benefits from that and killing the journalist would be against their agenda so keep your BS to yourself
 
those " terrorists" wont kill someone without getting benefits from that and killing the journalist would be against their agenda so keep your BS to yourself
blah blah, every one knows who the killers are we dont need a certificate from 3rd rate hypocrites like you.


Jammu and Kashmir: the death of a cause
JANUARY 31, 2007 00:00 IST
UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 22:21 IST
SHARE ARTICLE PRINT A A A
Praveen Swami

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has candidly acknowledged that the Islamist rebellion of 1989 has failed. The APHC chairman should now join in an inclusive, multi-party dialogue to marginalise terrorism.

MIRWAIZ MOHAMMAD Farooq's body lies in the Bihisht-e-Shauda-e-Kashmir in Srinagar, a sprawling graveyard built to honour those who have given their lives during the Islamist campaign against Indian rule that began in 1989. His assassin, the Hizbul-Mujahideen-linked terrorist Abdullah Bangroo, is buried just a few metres away. Both the murderer and his victim, to the faithful, are martyrs: martyrs, moreover, for the same cause.

If the presence of Bangroo's grave in the Bihisht-e-Shauda Persian for martyr's paradise gives offence to Mohammad Farooq's son, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference chairperson Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, he has never shown it in public. Mirwaiz Farooq's authority owes not a little to his status as a spokesperson for the cause of his father's jihadist opponents, an ugly irony that has often drawn taunts from his opponents.

Now, however, the Srinagar cleric has finally spoken out. Addressing a January 20 dinner meeting hosted by Pakistan-administered Kashmir Prime Minister Sardar Attique Ahmad Khan, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq finally delivered the unequivocal rejection of violence that peace advocates have long called for and, unnoticed by most commentators, a candid admission that the Islamist rebellion of 1989 had failed.

"We have already seen the results of our fight on the political, diplomatic and military fronts," the cleric said, "which have not achieved anything other than creating more graveyards." While he understood the sentiments of those engaged in the armed struggle, the Mirwaiz said, "as far as the APHC is concerned, we are not prepared to sacrifice any more of our loved ones."

Mirwaiz Farooq's remarks came hours after he met Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, as part of a dialogue process that is dramatically transfiguring Jammu and Kashmir's political landscape. General Musharraf had turned to the APHC for the legitimisation of a four-point plan his opponents have bitterly criticised a plan that in essence involves accepting existing borders, in return for wide-ranging autonomy for both parts of Jammu and Kashmir, free transnational movement, and phased demilitarisation.

At first glance, Mirwaiz Farooq's remarks seem startling. Only in May, after all, the APHC chairman had called for the "political, diplomatic and military fronts" of the "Kashmiri resistance" to work "in unison" against Indian "occupation." In reality, however, the APHC chairman's call for an end to the jihad in Jammu and Kashmir merely reflects the centre-ground among secessionists. As early as 1997, Jammu and Kashmir Jamaat-e-Islami chief Ghulam Mohammad Bhat said the armed struggle had "served its purpose" no small assertion coming from one of the Hizbul-Mujahideen's mentors.

Such sentiments became increasingly common. In April 1999, the APHC's Abdul Gani Butt called for a dialogue between secessionists and political groups such as the National Conference. The outcome of this dialogue, he suggested, would constitute the will of the people of the State. Remarkably similar to the round-table dialogue instituted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2005, Mr. Butt's ideas constituted a sharp departure from the APHC's longstanding demand for a three-way dialogue involving India, Pakistan, and itself.

While the Kargil war interrupted efforts to put such a dialogue in place, APHC centrists were able to facilitate the unilateral ceasefire declared by dissident Hizbul-Mujahideen commander Abdul Majid Dar in 2000. Although Islamist groups, with the support of Pakistan, succeeded in sabotaging the ceasefire, a succession of developments worked to strengthen the APHC centrists. Pakistan's longstanding sponsorship of terrorism became increasingly untenable in a world transfigured by the tragic events of September 11, 2000. The near-war provoked by the Jaish-e-Mohammad strike on India's Parliament, moreover, brought home to Islamabad the potentially catastrophic costs of its proxy war strategy.

In mid-April 2002, Mirwaiz Farooq and Abdul Gani Lone a one-time supporter of far-right jihadi groups who was eventually assassinated by a Lashkar-e-Taiba hit-squad in May 2002 travelled to Sharjah for discussions with the powerful Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir leader Sardar Abdul Qayoom Khan and Pakistan's then-Inter-Services Intelligence chief, Lieutenant-General Ehsan-ul-Haq.

"If the [Indian] government is not ready to allow self-determination," Lone said soon after, "the alternative is that they should be ready to settle the dispute through a meaningful dialogue involving all parties concerned."

Facing the backlash

Ever since 2004, when the APHC leadership first held formal discussions with the Government of India, that dialogue process has been in motion but at snail-like speed. Part of the problem is that the Mirwaiz's appetite for personal risk is low the outcome of the sustained terrorist threat to his family, and the fact that there is, so far, no male heir to his clerical throne. As important, the APHC, with its limited on-ground political influence, fears the outcome of dialogue in which it would be just one of several voices from Jammu and Kashmir rather than the sole spokesman for its people.

After meeting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2005, APHC leaders had promised to come back with detailed proposals for discussion through an institutional mechanism. The promise wasn't kept, for fear of upsetting jihadi groups hostile to the APHC's engagement with New Delhi. Again, in March 2006, APHC leaders promised mediators they would attend Prime Minister Singh's second round table conference on Jammu and Kashmir, but backed off after threats from the Hizbul-Mujahideen.

Now, the APHC hopes, President Musharraf's support will secure them from personal attack and thus facilitate a serious dialogue with New Delhi. Just how well-founded this belief will prove, though, isn't clear. On January 15, for example, terrorists lobbed grenades at Mirwaiz Farooq's home in suburban Srinagar. Jihadi front-organisations like the Save Kashmir Movement have already held out express death threats to him. A United Jihad Council spokesperson warned the Mirwaiz to "not teach the lesson of cowardice and hopelessness to the caravan of freedom seekers."

Underpinning this violence are jihadi fears that the APHC will run away with the prizes of two decades of violence. Speaking to journalists on January 21, the hardline Islamist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani observed: "leaders who are today talking of ending militancy owe their popularity to these militants only."

Mr. Geelani's rejection of talks might be unprincipled as late as August 19, 1989, after many of his Jamaat-e-Islami colleagues had joined the Hizbul-Mujahideen, he participated in all-party called by Farooq Abdullah as Chief Minister and advocated negotiations with armed groups but the fact is his Tehreek-e-Hurriyat has the support of terrorist groups, and therefore the power to sabotage the dialogue process. On January 17, as the APHC delegation prepared to leave for Pakistan, a strike called by the Tehreek succeeded in shutting down much of the Kashmir valley. Backed by the Hizbul-Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba, the strike even paralysed life in Mirwaiz Farooq's downtown Srinagar heartland, a fact of no small consequence.

APHC centrists hope Pakistani pressure will marginalise their jihadi opponents. Under intense pressure from the United States, and aware of the risks of a confrontation with India when it is under an existence-threatening siege from within, Pakistan has understood it cannot sustain the jihad in Jammu and Kashmir at levels that pose a serious threat to India. On the ground, this has meant organisations such as the Hizbul-Mujahideen are strapped for cash, short of weapons, and low on morale.

Most important, General Musharraf has found his relationship with Pakistani Islamists growing increasingly adversarial. Heading into elections scheduled for later this year, Qazi Husain Ahmad's Hizbul-Mujahideen-linked Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, and the Lashkar-backed Markaz Dawah wal'Irshad have charged General Musharraf with betraying both Pakistan's national interests and Islam. As such, the General shares the APHC's interests in stripping Islamist terror groups of military muscle.

Still, the fact is the dialogue process' opponents command clout. If the jihad in Jammu and Kashmir is, in fact, to be brought to an end, Mirwaiz Farooq will have to join in a genuinely inclusive dialogue the sole instrument through which those who advocate violence can be marginalised.

Mirwaiz Farooq has demonstrated he understands this fact by supporting multi-party working groups set up in Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir to evolve a consensus on the State's future. APHC leaders are hoping to meet Prime Minister Singh to take forward the dialogue. Should they do so, the Prime Minister could suggest the Mirwaiz adopt the same standard on the Indian side of the LoC, and lead the APHC into the round-table dialogue it rejected last year.

Eventually, the APHC would become just one of several competitive political actors in Jammu and Kashmir.

Why should the APHC walk into such an uncertain future? Several reasons could be conceived of but the most compelling is that there is no option. APHC reluctance to join competitive politics has cost lives but also helped mainstream political parties such as the People's Democratic Party to encroach on much of its political space. If Mirwaiz Farooq is indeed serious that he wants no more martyrs without a cause, the time has come for him to sacrifice his organisation's insistence on being the single author of Jammu and Kashmir's destiny.

https://www.thehindu.com/todays-pap...hmir-the-death-of-a-cause/article14713519.ece
 
blah blah, every one knows who the killers are we dont need a certificate from 3rd rate hypocrites like you.


Jammu and Kashmir: the death of a cause
JANUARY 31, 2007 00:00 IST
UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 22:21 IST
SHARE ARTICLE PRINT A A A
Praveen Swami

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has candidly acknowledged that the Islamist rebellion of 1989 has failed. The APHC chairman should now join in an inclusive, multi-party dialogue to marginalise terrorism.

MIRWAIZ MOHAMMAD Farooq's body lies in the Bihisht-e-Shauda-e-Kashmir in Srinagar, a sprawling graveyard built to honour those who have given their lives during the Islamist campaign against Indian rule that began in 1989. His assassin, the Hizbul-Mujahideen-linked terrorist Abdullah Bangroo, is buried just a few metres away. Both the murderer and his victim, to the faithful, are martyrs: martyrs, moreover, for the same cause.

If the presence of Bangroo's grave in the Bihisht-e-Shauda Persian for martyr's paradise gives offence to Mohammad Farooq's son, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference chairperson Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, he has never shown it in public. Mirwaiz Farooq's authority owes not a little to his status as a spokesperson for the cause of his father's jihadist opponents, an ugly irony that has often drawn taunts from his opponents.

Now, however, the Srinagar cleric has finally spoken out. Addressing a January 20 dinner meeting hosted by Pakistan-administered Kashmir Prime Minister Sardar Attique Ahmad Khan, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq finally delivered the unequivocal rejection of violence that peace advocates have long called for and, unnoticed by most commentators, a candid admission that the Islamist rebellion of 1989 had failed.

"We have already seen the results of our fight on the political, diplomatic and military fronts," the cleric said, "which have not achieved anything other than creating more graveyards." While he understood the sentiments of those engaged in the armed struggle, the Mirwaiz said, "as far as the APHC is concerned, we are not prepared to sacrifice any more of our loved ones."

Mirwaiz Farooq's remarks came hours after he met Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, as part of a dialogue process that is dramatically transfiguring Jammu and Kashmir's political landscape. General Musharraf had turned to the APHC for the legitimisation of a four-point plan his opponents have bitterly criticised a plan that in essence involves accepting existing borders, in return for wide-ranging autonomy for both parts of Jammu and Kashmir, free transnational movement, and phased demilitarisation.

At first glance, Mirwaiz Farooq's remarks seem startling. Only in May, after all, the APHC chairman had called for the "political, diplomatic and military fronts" of the "Kashmiri resistance" to work "in unison" against Indian "occupation." In reality, however, the APHC chairman's call for an end to the jihad in Jammu and Kashmir merely reflects the centre-ground among secessionists. As early as 1997, Jammu and Kashmir Jamaat-e-Islami chief Ghulam Mohammad Bhat said the armed struggle had "served its purpose" no small assertion coming from one of the Hizbul-Mujahideen's mentors.

Such sentiments became increasingly common. In April 1999, the APHC's Abdul Gani Butt called for a dialogue between secessionists and political groups such as the National Conference. The outcome of this dialogue, he suggested, would constitute the will of the people of the State. Remarkably similar to the round-table dialogue instituted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2005, Mr. Butt's ideas constituted a sharp departure from the APHC's longstanding demand for a three-way dialogue involving India, Pakistan, and itself.

While the Kargil war interrupted efforts to put such a dialogue in place, APHC centrists were able to facilitate the unilateral ceasefire declared by dissident Hizbul-Mujahideen commander Abdul Majid Dar in 2000. Although Islamist groups, with the support of Pakistan, succeeded in sabotaging the ceasefire, a succession of developments worked to strengthen the APHC centrists. Pakistan's longstanding sponsorship of terrorism became increasingly untenable in a world transfigured by the tragic events of September 11, 2000. The near-war provoked by the Jaish-e-Mohammad strike on India's Parliament, moreover, brought home to Islamabad the potentially catastrophic costs of its proxy war strategy.

In mid-April 2002, Mirwaiz Farooq and Abdul Gani Lone a one-time supporter of far-right jihadi groups who was eventually assassinated by a Lashkar-e-Taiba hit-squad in May 2002 travelled to Sharjah for discussions with the powerful Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir leader Sardar Abdul Qayoom Khan and Pakistan's then-Inter-Services Intelligence chief, Lieutenant-General Ehsan-ul-Haq.

"If the [Indian] government is not ready to allow self-determination," Lone said soon after, "the alternative is that they should be ready to settle the dispute through a meaningful dialogue involving all parties concerned."

Facing the backlash

Ever since 2004, when the APHC leadership first held formal discussions with the Government of India, that dialogue process has been in motion but at snail-like speed. Part of the problem is that the Mirwaiz's appetite for personal risk is low the outcome of the sustained terrorist threat to his family, and the fact that there is, so far, no male heir to his clerical throne. As important, the APHC, with its limited on-ground political influence, fears the outcome of dialogue in which it would be just one of several voices from Jammu and Kashmir rather than the sole spokesman for its people.

After meeting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2005, APHC leaders had promised to come back with detailed proposals for discussion through an institutional mechanism. The promise wasn't kept, for fear of upsetting jihadi groups hostile to the APHC's engagement with New Delhi. Again, in March 2006, APHC leaders promised mediators they would attend Prime Minister Singh's second round table conference on Jammu and Kashmir, but backed off after threats from the Hizbul-Mujahideen.

Now, the APHC hopes, President Musharraf's support will secure them from personal attack and thus facilitate a serious dialogue with New Delhi. Just how well-founded this belief will prove, though, isn't clear. On January 15, for example, terrorists lobbed grenades at Mirwaiz Farooq's home in suburban Srinagar. Jihadi front-organisations like the Save Kashmir Movement have already held out express death threats to him. A United Jihad Council spokesperson warned the Mirwaiz to "not teach the lesson of cowardice and hopelessness to the caravan of freedom seekers."

Underpinning this violence are jihadi fears that the APHC will run away with the prizes of two decades of violence. Speaking to journalists on January 21, the hardline Islamist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani observed: "leaders who are today talking of ending militancy owe their popularity to these militants only."

Mr. Geelani's rejection of talks might be unprincipled as late as August 19, 1989, after many of his Jamaat-e-Islami colleagues had joined the Hizbul-Mujahideen, he participated in all-party called by Farooq Abdullah as Chief Minister and advocated negotiations with armed groups but the fact is his Tehreek-e-Hurriyat has the support of terrorist groups, and therefore the power to sabotage the dialogue process. On January 17, as the APHC delegation prepared to leave for Pakistan, a strike called by the Tehreek succeeded in shutting down much of the Kashmir valley. Backed by the Hizbul-Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba, the strike even paralysed life in Mirwaiz Farooq's downtown Srinagar heartland, a fact of no small consequence.

APHC centrists hope Pakistani pressure will marginalise their jihadi opponents. Under intense pressure from the United States, and aware of the risks of a confrontation with India when it is under an existence-threatening siege from within, Pakistan has understood it cannot sustain the jihad in Jammu and Kashmir at levels that pose a serious threat to India. On the ground, this has meant organisations such as the Hizbul-Mujahideen are strapped for cash, short of weapons, and low on morale.

Most important, General Musharraf has found his relationship with Pakistani Islamists growing increasingly adversarial. Heading into elections scheduled for later this year, Qazi Husain Ahmad's Hizbul-Mujahideen-linked Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, and the Lashkar-backed Markaz Dawah wal'Irshad have charged General Musharraf with betraying both Pakistan's national interests and Islam. As such, the General shares the APHC's interests in stripping Islamist terror groups of military muscle.

Still, the fact is the dialogue process' opponents command clout. If the jihad in Jammu and Kashmir is, in fact, to be brought to an end, Mirwaiz Farooq will have to join in a genuinely inclusive dialogue the sole instrument through which those who advocate violence can be marginalised.

Mirwaiz Farooq has demonstrated he understands this fact by supporting multi-party working groups set up in Pakistan-administered Jammu and Kashmir to evolve a consensus on the State's future. APHC leaders are hoping to meet Prime Minister Singh to take forward the dialogue. Should they do so, the Prime Minister could suggest the Mirwaiz adopt the same standard on the Indian side of the LoC, and lead the APHC into the round-table dialogue it rejected last year.

Eventually, the APHC would become just one of several competitive political actors in Jammu and Kashmir.

Why should the APHC walk into such an uncertain future? Several reasons could be conceived of but the most compelling is that there is no option. APHC reluctance to join competitive politics has cost lives but also helped mainstream political parties such as the People's Democratic Party to encroach on much of its political space. If Mirwaiz Farooq is indeed serious that he wants no more martyrs without a cause, the time has come for him to sacrifice his organisation's insistence on being the single author of Jammu and Kashmir's destiny.

https://www.thehindu.com/todays-pap...hmir-the-death-of-a-cause/article14713519.ece
agree the killers are the rapistani army
 
says the hypocrite mullah living in foreign land.
im not a hypocrite nor a mullah, you indians really get triggered quick, too bad that foreign land isnt as foreign too me as it is to some now shut up
 
im not a hypocrite nor a mullah, you indians really get triggered quick, too bad that foreign land isnt as foreign too me as it is to some now shut up
whos getting triggered now ;-) , the guy with no facts.
 
LET has not taken the blame of the killing now it is only RAW India should be shameful in silencing voices like this.

LeT denies involvement in journalist Shujaat Bukhari's murder

https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nat...vement-in-journalist-shujaat-bukharis-mu.html


Of course terrorist organisation all over the world, are renowned for their honesty and uprightness.
Even among them, Pakistani terrorists are the most innocent and the most honest terrorist in the world, always owning up, when they spill blood of the innocent.

Don't we all remember, how quickly Al Qaida has owned up to 9/11 attacks, LeT to Mumbai attacks and TTP to APS attack.
 
Of course terrorist organisation all over the world, are renowned for their honesty and uprightness.
Even among them, Pakistani terrorists are the most innocent and the most honest terrorist in the world, always owning up, when they spill blood of the innocent.

Don't we all remember, how quickly Al Qaida has owned up to 9/11 attacks, LeT to Mumbai attacks and TTP to APS attack.

Why would they kill if they don't want to claim it. It is a murder done by Indian RAW.
 
Why would they kill if they don't want to claim it. It is a murder done by Indian RAW.
Simple reason. To silence an annoying voice and to yet keep a positive image among Kashmiris. The killing was not to send any message but to remove an obstacle. You take responsibility when you have a message to deliver. This was more of a 'thug killing a witness' kind of situation. Thugs --ie LeT-- will never agree that they killed the man.
 
Simple reason. To silence an annoying voice and to yet keep a positive image among Kashmiris. The killing was not to send any message but to remove an obstacle. You take responsibility when you have a message to deliver. This was more of a 'thug killing a witness' kind of situation. Thugs --ie LeT-- will never agree that they killed the man.

He was the only voice they had in Kashmir that gave them some favor so they wanted to silence their only voice lol. India killed him and now India should have the balls to take the blame. Pathetic move by India.
 
Back
Top Bottom