Sunday, January 14, 2007

Hurriyat demands ceasefire in Kashmir

jan 14th, 2007
naturally. all the better to supply those 'kashmiri emporia'.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Shahryar
I guess the Mirwaiz had his head stuck up his ass whilst studying the Irish Peace Process or else he would know that the main criterion was that all paramilitary and criminal activity must cease and the terrorists surrender their arms!
Does anyone know why they call themselves "Hurriyat Conference" and not "Azadi Conference"?
Hurriyat demands ceasefire in Kashmir

PTI | January 15, 2007 | 09:08 IST

Terming that guns have lost their relavance in the solution of the Kashmir issue, the moderate faction of seperatist outfit Hurriyat Conference on Monday asked the Centre to announce an internal ceasefire in Jammu and Kashmir and said it would "compliment" the move.
"APHC calls upon New Delhi to announce and initiate an internal ceasefire in the state and promised Hurriyat would later impress the terrorist leadership to reciprocate ," Hurriyat Chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq told reporters here after meeting a delegation of Kashmir traders, migrants and senior citizens.
"New Delhi, being the bigger party in the Kashmir problem, should initiate the ceasefire," he said adding that Hurriyat would compliment this move by the Centre.
The Mirwaiz, who had come here yesterday and met seven delegations so far from Rajouri and Poonch also, said that violence is detrimental to peace. Guns were no solution to the Kashmir dispute. Gun culture should end now and only dialogue could fetch the resolution of the Kashmir issue.
"The government of India should come up with its roadmap to Kashmir. We would welcome its proposals on the resolution of the long-standing dispute of Kashmir," the Hurriyat chief said.
"I have thoroughly studied the Irish Peace Process model during my visit to Ireland. New Delhi should exhibit a political will like the United Kingdom in resolving the conflict in Northern Ireland," he said.
He said that they did not take part in the round table conference on Kashmir convened by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and working groups set up on the issue as it was only Jammu and Kashmir centric and should have also included Pakistan occupied Kashmir and northern areas in its ambit.
"The need of hour is to institutionalise the dialogue process so that it doesn't derail in case of any eventuality," he said.
Commenting on the extremist Hurriyat chairman Syed Ali Shah Geelani's call of strike on January 17 against the dialogue process between New Delhi and Islamabad and some separatist leaders, the Mirwaiz said, "Geelani Sahab is caught up in history. Post 9/11, the global order is changing and new structures are emerging."
On the role of United Nations for failing to resolve the Kashmir issue, Mirwaiz said, "UN has failed Iraq, Afghanistan as well as Kashmir."

URL for this article:

What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.

1 comment:

Shahryar said...

Excerpt from Lessons of the Northern Ireland Peace Process

Lesson #1 is that the state must defend itself at all costs

The state must demonstrate its staying power against those who challenge it with violence. Once a terrorist campaign has been launched, the government has no choice but to oppose it with all available resources. The state must demonstrate that it retains a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. This right, which inheres to every state, cannot be challenged by any non-state actors, especially terrorists. And the state has to sustain this policy, which is really a case of political willpower, over a period of years.

Without a demonstration of the government's stamina to prosecute the war, the state would cede its authority and cease to exist. The group in opposition would simply triumph by force of arms. There may be peace, of a sort, but it would be a false peace -- and certainly not a peace process.

As we know, the British government proved it would not be cowed, but would instead respond forcefully to the IRA. Over a period of years, the message became clear. Try as it might, the IRA could not drive the British from Northern Ireland.