Of Confessions and Clean Chits!

While New Delhi is blaming the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) for the Pathankot airbase attack, United Jihad Council (UJC) chief and Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) chief Syed Sallahudin is claiming that this attack is the handiwork of his outfit. Disclosing that this attack “was carried out by the national highway squad of the UJC”, Sallahudin has only helped strengthen New Delhi’s allegations that it is the victim of state sponsored terrorism being unleashed by the Pakistan army through terror groups. This confession also raises another fundamental yet very critical question. Is the UJC and more specifically the HM, solely committed to waging “freedom struggle” in Kashmir? Or is it that these outfits are fighting “Pakistan’s war in Kashmir,” as Sallahudin had once himself admitted? 

When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as well as the entire international community has strongly condemned the Patankot airbase attack calling it an act of terror, why did a seasoned person like Sallahudin decide to claim responsibility for the same? And why was he in such a tearing hurry to do so? However, this is not the first time that Sallahudin has taken responsibility for something that isn’t very healthy for the image of the UJC or the HM. On August 6, 2013, five Indian army soldiers were killed on the Line of Control (LoC). New Delhi outrightly blamed the Pakistan army soldiers for having committed this provocative act after having intruded into Indian territory. While the Pakistan army outrightly rejected these allegations,  after a gap of more than two weeks, Sallahudin shocked the world by saying that “If India blames Pakistan Army for the killing of five soldiers in Poonch sector, let me (make it ) clear that Hizbul Mujahideen’s Sarhadi (border) squad killed them under a specific strategy.”  

It was due to the inordinate delay on the part of Sallahudin in claiming responsibility for the Poonch killings that the same found no takers. Perhaps this is the reason why he has acted prematurely this time and quickly accepted responsibility for the Pathankot airbase attack. The UJC spokesperson has claimed that this attack was carried out by militants from Kashmir but experts on militancy are not convinced. They feel that when Sallahudin has no inhibitions in disclosing that the Pathankot airbase attackers were Kashmiris, then why he hasn’t revealed their identity since they too deserve recognition?  Or is it that the deceased are actually not Kashmiris and so their identities are intentionally not being disclosed since DNA tests would expose the UJC’s lie. Some analysts are almost certain that like in the Poonch incident, Sallahudin has once again been made to claim responsibility for something that his outfit never did. Why? Presumably to ensure that the finger of suspicion does not point at the Pakistan army or the ISI!

We all are witnessing how the ‘armed struggle’ in Kashmir is rapidly consuming our youth like wildfire.  Without meaning to belittle the sacrifices made by thousands of young boys, the idea of ‘liberating’ Kashmir through the gun has never appealed to me, as like many others I too honestly believe that this is a mission that is practically unachievable in the present day context. Yet, while I do not bear any grudge against those espouse the cult of violence, but I do feel hurt when they come out with statements that mock the martyrs or deride the ‘armed struggle.’ In the instance case,  I find the UJC statement declaring that “The attack on Pathankot Air Base from Kashmiri Mujhadeen carries a message to India that no security establishment and garrison are out of reach from militants” reeking of jingoism. Is sending a message to India highlighting its vulnerability the stated aim of ‘armed struggle’ in Kashmir? Is it for this that our youth are laying down their lives? Certainly not!   

It should not be forgotten that Hurriyat (G) chairman SAS Geelani has consistently maintained that Kashmiris are not enemies of New Delhi and do not hold any grudge against Indians. Unfortunately the UJC statement gives a completely different picture as makes it clear that the aim of the Pathankot airbase attack was to threaten India by demonstrating the UJC’s military prowess and reach. Such an approach reinforces the belief that the HM is indeed a proxy working at the behest of the Pakistan army and not an indigenous and independent outfit of ‘freedom fighters’ that it claims to be. Therefore, even though being the UJC chief and HM supremo entitles Sallahudin sahib to express his view on the ‘armed struggle’ in Kashmir, yet he has no right to convey the wrong impression that Kashmiris consider the people of India as their enemies, as this can alienate those who are supporting our ‘right to self determination.’ 

The HM has not yet been listed as a terrorist organisation and banned by the international community since it has taken care to ensure that its activities are confined to the Kashmir region and directed against security forces conducting anti militancy operations. However, since attacking an airbase has distinct military undertones with far reaching consequences, the international community is not likely to accept the claim that the Pathankot airbase attack was just another militancy related incident. And it is here that there are reasons to believe complicity of the Pakistan army in masterminding this attack. 

Thus, Sallahudin sahib needs to remember that in trying to ‘save’ Pakistan army and the ISI from international embarrassment by accepting full responsibility for the Pathankot airbase attack may have serious repercussions for the HM.  Therefore, if the HM is not involved in this incident, then the UJC chief has no right to wager its reputation just in order to save some other organisation or agency. And if the HM is indeed responsible for this attack, then the UJC chief needs to seriously introspect on how this attack, which has been condemned worldwide, has actually helped the Kashmir cause. What if New Delhi decides to dump the JeM angle and instead accept Sallahudin’s public confession and press the international community for listing the HM as a terrorist outfit and banning it? 

Tailpiece: It was Pakistan’s ex President and its former army chief Gen Musharraf who in a TV interview had referred to Kashmiris as an “asset” that Pakistan could easily use against India as all that was needed was to  “incite” them. While this painful remark raises suspicion that the UJC (of which the HM is a part) could be a ‘proxy’ of the Pakistan army, the clumsy effort by the UJC to give the Pakistan army a clean chit on the Pathankot airbase attack by saying that “India is suffering from Pakistan phobia and has been blaming every attack by the freedom fighters of Kashmir on Pakistan,” only adds to the ‘proxy’ rumours. We must express our gratitude for Pakistan’s continued support to the Kashmir cause. However, we must not allow our indebtedness to be misconstrued as subservience by either Islamabad or the international community as then we would actually allow ourselves to become Pakistan’s proxies!

Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group: Join Now

MONTHLY	Rs 100
YEARLY	Rs 1000
LIFETIME	Rs 10000

CLICK FOR DETAILS