The Hurriyat Conference today refused to talk to the Centre’s Kashmir interlocutor, N N Vohra, and sought an exclusive and unconditional dialogue with the Prime Minister, using the Naga talks as a model. ‘‘We are not against negotiations but we believe in a purposeful process which will yield some results. We think the approach taken by Vohra is non-political and lacks clarity of thought,’’ said former Hurriyat chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq. ‘‘They (Vohra mission) prefer to speak to only those who speak Government of India’s language. Vohra is talking to those people who have no dispute with the Government of India,’’ Farooq said. He, along with Hurriyat chairman Prof Abdul Gani Bhat and senior leader Yasin Malik, addressed the press at the Hurriyat headquarters here to explain their decision. The Hurriyat leaders stressed on the need to adopt the same ‘‘dialogue format’’ that was employed in the case of the Naga dispute. ‘‘We know the Naga problem is entirely different from the Kashmir dispute. But we want the Government of India to adopt the similar format of dialogue that they have employed while engaging the Naga leadership,’’ Yasin Malik said. ‘‘This dialogue format was primarily based on three areas: talks at the highest level; talks without pre-conditions; and talks only with those political parties who have a dispute with the Government of India,’’ he said. ‘‘If three prime ministers can travel abroad to talk to the Naga leadership, why can’t (they do so) in our case! And when the Government of India had a dialogue with the Nagas, the Chief Minister of Nagaland or any pro-India political group was not involved in those talks. Why are they using a different yardstick for the dialogue here,’’ Malik asked. Giving details about the role played by the Hurriyat leadership to push forward a peace process in Kashmir, Malik and Farooq said ‘‘after Vohra’s appointment as Centre’s Kashmir interlocutor, a high-level Hurriyat delegation was sent to New Delhi to hold talks with the political leadership, intellectuals and ambassadors from across the world to explain their position’’. He said we explained the shortcommings in the previous peace processes. ‘‘We have always taken the first step whenever we found an opportunity for a solution through peaceful means. When Prime Minister Vajpayee initiated a ceasefire, we hailed the move and even came forward to make this process permanent and result-oriented. We were ready to travel to Pakistan to expand the process but we were denied that chance; so the peace process failed,’’ he said. Farooq said that when the Prime Minister had offered a hand of friendship to Pakistan here recently, we thought ‘‘a beginning has been made’’. He said the Hurriyat wanted a dialogue between India and Pakistan and was also happy that a dialogue had been initiated on the internal track. ‘‘We had thought that this was an approach for a triangular dialogue and the Government of India would enagage all those people who believe Kashmir is a dispute in a meaningful dialogue. But they initiated a very non-serious process here.’’ Farooq sad ‘‘if the Centre thinks the Kashmir problem can be resolved if they speak to pro-India parties like Congress, National Conference, People’s Democratic Party and others, we have not tied their hands. Let them try. But we believe unless and until they talk to people who believe that Kashmir is a dispute, there will be no headway.’’ Malik said this view has been put across by even several pro-India parties who have been meeting Vohra. ‘‘Several among those who met Vohra told him that the need was to enagage separatist political parties,’’ he said. Referring to Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, Malik said for the past three years, he too had been harping on how he wished to become a facilitator in a dialogue process between the separatist political parties and the political leadership in New Delhi at the highest level.
