'Won't accept anything less than freedom': J&K separatists harden stance

Hardening their stance, the Joint Resistance Leadership (JRL) of separatists on Tuesday said they will not accept anything less than freedom and their fight will continue till the last Armyman leaves Jammu and Kashmir.

The statement comes a day after the Centre decided to begin a sustained dialogue with all the stakeholders and named former Intelligence Bureau (IB) chief Dineshwar Sharma as the new interlocutor for J&K.

"People will observe October 27 as 'black day' and it will send a message to the global community that they are resisting and resenting the forced occupation and will continue to do so, till the last soldier leaves the state. It will also illustrate their wish that they will not accept anything less than freedom," the JRL said.

The JRL includes Hurriyat hawk Syed Ali Geelani, Moderate Hurriyat Conference chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, and J&K Liberation Front chairman Mohammad Yasin Malik, who spearheaded last year's unrest.

The body has urged people to observe a complete strike on October 27, to protest against the landing of Indian army in Kashmir to fight the tribal invasion from Pakistan in 1947. The Indian army had reached Kashmir a day a after the instrument of accession was signed by the last Dogra ruler Maharaja Hari Singh, with the Union of India, on October 26, 1947.

"October 27, 1947, was the unfortunate day for Kashmiris when we were deprived of our freedom and liberty. India, against the wishes of the people here, landed its troops. The people of J&K were neither asked for their viewpoint then, nor are their wishes and aspirations being respected today," the JRL further stated.

The separatist conglomerate also said the ruling elite and kings of Hyderabad and Junagarh wanted to merge their states with Pakistan but India "forcibly landed its army", claiming that partition was against the wishes of the people. "But the same rulers of India adopted contrary policies with regards to J&K and occupied the state against the wishes and aspirations of its people," the JRL said.

Terming the accession of the state with India as controversial, unreliable, and undemocratic, the JRL said that experts on historical events raise several important queries about the instrument's authenticity and occurrence, and moreover, the late Maharaja had no such mandate from the people of the state.

"Who had given this authority to an individual to decide the future destiny of people of the state on his own, and that too at an occasion when people stood against him and rebelled against his autocratic rule?" JRL asked.