SpArK
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 5, 2010
- Messages
- 22,519
- Reaction score
- 18
- Country
- Location
Truth on who killed Maulvi Farooq, Lone by Hurriyat made public
- Thread starter EjazR
- Start date
what about hyderbad?(allthough members may thing its offtopic but ajtr knows it what i am talking about)
ajtr
BANNED
- Joined
- May 25, 2010
- Messages
- 9,357
- Reaction score
- 0
Ordinary kashmiris have realised it and they have take azadi movement in their own hands now.thats why india saw all those kids women, old people,young ones on the kashmir streets during kashmir intifada in 2010 so much so that it woke up everybody's conscience in india,all round the world.now masses wont follow leaders but leaders will follow masses in kashmir Azadi movement.This has shaken up GOI to the roots that its now coming up all silly arguments to discredit the kids protesting on the streets of kashmir and attaining martyrdom.Their martyrdom wont go in vain.
para-site
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 139
- Reaction score
- 0
Dont worry next round of martyrdom wont come before next US president's visit..........wanna bet.....
StingRoy
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,735
- Reaction score
- 0
Ordinary Kashmiris are brain washed by these political goons into believing that they are fighting for freedom, and most came onto streets after there were reports of deaths. It is but natural to protest against unwarranted deaths, but you have to think what caused the deaths at the first place.
I didn't see the children and women on the streets in the initial days of protests... did you? Initial protests were purely political and provocative against the security forces.
KS
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2010
- Messages
- 12,528
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
If what you said is true, I will be the happiest person on earth.
Atlast the GoI is acting pro-actively rather than in a reactive manner.
SpArK
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 5, 2010
- Messages
- 22,519
- Reaction score
- 18
- Country
- Location
If what you said is true, I will be the happiest person on earth.
Atlast the GoI is acting pro-actively rather than in a reactive manner.
Hey Karthik, any idea how much they been paid... I guess after this there will be huge demand for a raise, for the propoganda money as onions prises and other commodity prices have gone up everywhere, including Kashmir.
That just shows your lack of knowledge of Kashmiri politics.
Prof. Abdul Gani Bhat was part of the Muslim Conference and had been a stauch pro-Pakistan advocate until the 1990s. And after that he as advocated a pro-Independance stand.
Geelani ofcourse on the other hand has been paid by GoP and indirectly involved in assasination of pro-independance leaders.
The mainstream NC or PDP could on the other hand be accused of the charge of getting funds from GoI.
Breaking the silence
RIYAZ WANI
The circumstances surrounding the death of many separatist leaders are street knowledge in Kashmir, but nobody speaks about it publicly. Even the local media refrains from discussing it. The separatists themselves — even those who have personally suffered — prefer to be diplomatic about it. There has been, until now, a consensus among separatists of all hues that silence on these killings is in the interest of the Kashmir cause.
That, however, gave the killings a wicked rationale of their own. The traitorous acts of the murdered leaders, it was believed by a large section of the population in the Valley, justified their killings. In some cases where such a generalisation appeared too inconvenient to make, the killings were alleged to be the handiwork of government forces.
This is why when former Hurriyat chairman Abdul Ghani Bhat spoke about it, he broke what has been the biggest taboo in Kashmir’s separatist discourse.
At a seminar organised by JKLF supremo Yasin Malik in memory of Abdul Ahad Wani, a JKLF ideologue who was kidnapped and shot dead by unidentified gunmen in 1993, Bhat — in characteristically theatrical style — announced that the “time to tell the truth had come”. Pointing to a large photograph of Wani, Bhat said it was odd to remember Wani without dwelling on who killed him. He said that Wani, Maulvi Farooq and Hurriyat leader Abdul Ghani Lone were not murdered by “the army or the police but their own people”.
Bhat’s outburst was followed by predictable reactions. The hardline Dukhtaran-i-Millat, a women’s separatist outfit, branded him an “Indian agent”. Ayaz Akber, spokesman of the hawkish Hurriyat faction led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani, said that Bhat’s speech did not deserve a response. Similarly, moderate Hurriyat chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq didn’t follow up on Bhat’s line of argument in his subsequent speech at the seminar; nor did he contradict him. Senior Hurriyat leader Bilal Lone, also present at the seminar, didn’t say anything. Their silence was significant: Maulvi Farooq was the father of Mirwaiz, and Abdul Ghani Lone of Bilal.
Why did Bhat choose to speak about the killings now, when the Valley seems to have come to grips with the loss? And when the circumstances that prompted these killings no longer exist? For one, militancy is at its lowest ebb. Two, separatists, because of their reduced political clout, are no longer in a position to play the high-stakes game that they did in the early 1990s. Their vulnerability seems to have only increased. Perhaps, what has drastically changed the dynamics for them — especially for moderates — is the exit of former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf.
In the latter half of the general’s nine years in power, which saw a movement towards a framework for resolution of Kashmir, the leaders of the moderate Hurriyat faction, led by Mirwaiz, had emerged as Islamabad’s favourite separatists. Islamabad had decisively turned its back on Geelani when he chose to oppose Musharraf’s four-point proposals on Kashmir and personally accused the general of selling out the state.
The new dispensation in Islamabad has not only gone back on Musharraf’s four-point proposals but has also returned to its traditional stand on the state, which is to call for the implementation of UN resolutions, and seeking a right to self-determination. Pakistan, now, also tries to maintain a degree of parity between the various separatist leaders, irrespective of their moderate or hawkish leanings. The Mirwaiz is no longer the sole chairman of the Hurriyat Conference, as he was earlier known, but the head of just one faction. Similarly, Geelani, who in earlier invites was referred to only as buzurg rehnuma (veteran leader), is now again addressed as the Hurriyat chairman.
The sudden policy shift has radically altered the equations between the separatists in the Valley. The hardline Hurriyat faction, whose disapproval of the talks between the Centre and the moderate Hurriyat was irrelevant through Musharraf’s tenure, now carries weight. It was this opposition, followed by the assault by unidentified gunmen on moderate Hurriyat leader Fazl-e-Haq Qureshi, which played a significant role in ending the quiet dialogue between the Centre and the Mirwaiz group in early 2009.
The moderate group, which essentially champions a pragmatic solution “that accepts the ground reality of Kashmir as a state inhabited by a heterogeneous mass of people with different political aspirations”, feels hemmed in under the circumstances. There is little space for political manoeuvring for this faction in a scenario where the UN resolutions have again become the central template for the resolution of Kashmir. More so for Bhat, who holds that these resolutions and the right to self-determination are no longer relevant. But stepping outside this historical framework could be fraught with unknown dangers for them. Hence they alternate between restraint and an effort to break free. Fazl-e-Haq’s fate is still fresh in memory.
RIYAZ WANI
The circumstances surrounding the death of many separatist leaders are street knowledge in Kashmir, but nobody speaks about it publicly. Even the local media refrains from discussing it. The separatists themselves — even those who have personally suffered — prefer to be diplomatic about it. There has been, until now, a consensus among separatists of all hues that silence on these killings is in the interest of the Kashmir cause.
That, however, gave the killings a wicked rationale of their own. The traitorous acts of the murdered leaders, it was believed by a large section of the population in the Valley, justified their killings. In some cases where such a generalisation appeared too inconvenient to make, the killings were alleged to be the handiwork of government forces.
This is why when former Hurriyat chairman Abdul Ghani Bhat spoke about it, he broke what has been the biggest taboo in Kashmir’s separatist discourse.
At a seminar organised by JKLF supremo Yasin Malik in memory of Abdul Ahad Wani, a JKLF ideologue who was kidnapped and shot dead by unidentified gunmen in 1993, Bhat — in characteristically theatrical style — announced that the “time to tell the truth had come”. Pointing to a large photograph of Wani, Bhat said it was odd to remember Wani without dwelling on who killed him. He said that Wani, Maulvi Farooq and Hurriyat leader Abdul Ghani Lone were not murdered by “the army or the police but their own people”.
Bhat’s outburst was followed by predictable reactions. The hardline Dukhtaran-i-Millat, a women’s separatist outfit, branded him an “Indian agent”. Ayaz Akber, spokesman of the hawkish Hurriyat faction led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani, said that Bhat’s speech did not deserve a response. Similarly, moderate Hurriyat chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq didn’t follow up on Bhat’s line of argument in his subsequent speech at the seminar; nor did he contradict him. Senior Hurriyat leader Bilal Lone, also present at the seminar, didn’t say anything. Their silence was significant: Maulvi Farooq was the father of Mirwaiz, and Abdul Ghani Lone of Bilal.
Why did Bhat choose to speak about the killings now, when the Valley seems to have come to grips with the loss? And when the circumstances that prompted these killings no longer exist? For one, militancy is at its lowest ebb. Two, separatists, because of their reduced political clout, are no longer in a position to play the high-stakes game that they did in the early 1990s. Their vulnerability seems to have only increased. Perhaps, what has drastically changed the dynamics for them — especially for moderates — is the exit of former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf.
In the latter half of the general’s nine years in power, which saw a movement towards a framework for resolution of Kashmir, the leaders of the moderate Hurriyat faction, led by Mirwaiz, had emerged as Islamabad’s favourite separatists. Islamabad had decisively turned its back on Geelani when he chose to oppose Musharraf’s four-point proposals on Kashmir and personally accused the general of selling out the state.
The new dispensation in Islamabad has not only gone back on Musharraf’s four-point proposals but has also returned to its traditional stand on the state, which is to call for the implementation of UN resolutions, and seeking a right to self-determination. Pakistan, now, also tries to maintain a degree of parity between the various separatist leaders, irrespective of their moderate or hawkish leanings. The Mirwaiz is no longer the sole chairman of the Hurriyat Conference, as he was earlier known, but the head of just one faction. Similarly, Geelani, who in earlier invites was referred to only as buzurg rehnuma (veteran leader), is now again addressed as the Hurriyat chairman.
The sudden policy shift has radically altered the equations between the separatists in the Valley. The hardline Hurriyat faction, whose disapproval of the talks between the Centre and the moderate Hurriyat was irrelevant through Musharraf’s tenure, now carries weight. It was this opposition, followed by the assault by unidentified gunmen on moderate Hurriyat leader Fazl-e-Haq Qureshi, which played a significant role in ending the quiet dialogue between the Centre and the Mirwaiz group in early 2009.
The moderate group, which essentially champions a pragmatic solution “that accepts the ground reality of Kashmir as a state inhabited by a heterogeneous mass of people with different political aspirations”, feels hemmed in under the circumstances. There is little space for political manoeuvring for this faction in a scenario where the UN resolutions have again become the central template for the resolution of Kashmir. More so for Bhat, who holds that these resolutions and the right to self-determination are no longer relevant. But stepping outside this historical framework could be fraught with unknown dangers for them. Hence they alternate between restraint and an effort to break free. Fazl-e-Haq’s fate is still fresh in memory.
Tehelka - IWill truth set Kashmir free? Candid Bhat believes so
BY ZAHID RAFIQ
There are several truths in Kashmir that everyone knows of but no one reveals, except in moments of anger, informal chats or off the record. Out of the thousands of people killed in the past two decades of conflict, there have been several political killings by ‘unidentified gunmen’. In many cases, everyone knew the hidden hand behind the gun, but the word ‘unidentified’ continued to mask the killers like the shroud hid the dead.
More than 20 years after ‘unidentified gunmen’ assassinated Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq, the father of Hurriyat Conference chairman Mirwaiz Umar, Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) ideologue Abdul Ahad Wani and separatist leader Abdul Ghani Lone, senior Hurriyat (M) leader Abdul Ghani Bhat chose to reveal an open secret. “Was Wani a martyr of brilliance or a martyr of rivalry? Let me speak the truth today,” Bhat said. “It was not the army or the police who killed Farooq or Prof Wani or Lone sahib. It was our own people.”
Bhat was speaking at a seminar organised on the death anniversary of Wani, who was killed on 31 December 1993 by gunmen after he was kidnapped from the Kashmir University where he taught law. On 21 May 1990, armed men barged into the house of Farooq and shot him dead. Twelve years later, Lone was killed at a rally marking Farooq’s death anniversary.
Bhat’s statement reverberated across the Valley’s political divide, even drawing a statement from state police chief Kuldeep Khoda, who said Mirwaiz and his killer are both buried in the same martyrs’ graveyard. “Everyone knew the harsh realities of political killings in Kashmir. Bhat revealed what everybody knows. I don’t know the reason for him to say this at this moment. But that is the truth,” Khoda said.
Bhat told Tehelka he had always chosen to speak the truth. “When Qazi Nisar was killed, I said he was not killed by the men in uniform but by our own people. I said the same when my brother was killed. And this time too at the seminar, I chose to speak. Before me, Bilal Lone was speaking and he insisted on the need for truth,” said Bhat. “This statement doesn’t mean that I exonerate the excesses of India in Kashmir. Truth is powerful and it must prevail. Had we chosen to say the truth in the 1990s, our movement would have gone in a better direction.”
Bhat, a moderate face of the Hurriyat now, was once a staunch believer in Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan. In the undivided Hurriyat, it is believed that Syed Ali Shah Geelani voted for him as the chairman because of his pro-Pakistan stance. But Bhat fell out with Geelani and then with Pakistan after Gen Pervez Musharaf was ousted from power. As the hardliners again became the favourites of Pakistan, and India pushed the moderates to the fringe, the moderates felt sidelined.
Geelani has emerged as the loudest spokesman of the Kashmir movement forcing the Centre to send a Parliamentary delegation to his doorstep. Bhat said when the moderates talked to India, they were called ‘infidels’, but when they (Hurriyat G) talk to the mps, they go scot-free.
Bhat has not been in the thick of things for the past three years when the political realities on the ground changed. But what does one do with the truth spoken after a long time? Truth is not redemption. But Bhat says truth will save Kashmir from going from one wrong to another.
BY ZAHID RAFIQ
There are several truths in Kashmir that everyone knows of but no one reveals, except in moments of anger, informal chats or off the record. Out of the thousands of people killed in the past two decades of conflict, there have been several political killings by ‘unidentified gunmen’. In many cases, everyone knew the hidden hand behind the gun, but the word ‘unidentified’ continued to mask the killers like the shroud hid the dead.
More than 20 years after ‘unidentified gunmen’ assassinated Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq, the father of Hurriyat Conference chairman Mirwaiz Umar, Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) ideologue Abdul Ahad Wani and separatist leader Abdul Ghani Lone, senior Hurriyat (M) leader Abdul Ghani Bhat chose to reveal an open secret. “Was Wani a martyr of brilliance or a martyr of rivalry? Let me speak the truth today,” Bhat said. “It was not the army or the police who killed Farooq or Prof Wani or Lone sahib. It was our own people.”
Bhat was speaking at a seminar organised on the death anniversary of Wani, who was killed on 31 December 1993 by gunmen after he was kidnapped from the Kashmir University where he taught law. On 21 May 1990, armed men barged into the house of Farooq and shot him dead. Twelve years later, Lone was killed at a rally marking Farooq’s death anniversary.
Bhat’s statement reverberated across the Valley’s political divide, even drawing a statement from state police chief Kuldeep Khoda, who said Mirwaiz and his killer are both buried in the same martyrs’ graveyard. “Everyone knew the harsh realities of political killings in Kashmir. Bhat revealed what everybody knows. I don’t know the reason for him to say this at this moment. But that is the truth,” Khoda said.
Bhat told Tehelka he had always chosen to speak the truth. “When Qazi Nisar was killed, I said he was not killed by the men in uniform but by our own people. I said the same when my brother was killed. And this time too at the seminar, I chose to speak. Before me, Bilal Lone was speaking and he insisted on the need for truth,” said Bhat. “This statement doesn’t mean that I exonerate the excesses of India in Kashmir. Truth is powerful and it must prevail. Had we chosen to say the truth in the 1990s, our movement would have gone in a better direction.”
Bhat, a moderate face of the Hurriyat now, was once a staunch believer in Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan. In the undivided Hurriyat, it is believed that Syed Ali Shah Geelani voted for him as the chairman because of his pro-Pakistan stance. But Bhat fell out with Geelani and then with Pakistan after Gen Pervez Musharaf was ousted from power. As the hardliners again became the favourites of Pakistan, and India pushed the moderates to the fringe, the moderates felt sidelined.
Geelani has emerged as the loudest spokesman of the Kashmir movement forcing the Centre to send a Parliamentary delegation to his doorstep. Bhat said when the moderates talked to India, they were called ‘infidels’, but when they (Hurriyat G) talk to the mps, they go scot-free.
Bhat has not been in the thick of things for the past three years when the political realities on the ground changed. But what does one do with the truth spoken after a long time? Truth is not redemption. But Bhat says truth will save Kashmir from going from one wrong to another.
Similar threads
