The Supreme Court showed a fine sense of discernment in making it plain recently that Hurriyat Conference leaders in the Kashmir Valley aren’t terrorists. Firmly refusing to entertain a petition on Wednesday that official funds not be spent on Kashmiri separatists and terrorists, the court clarified the expression “terrorist” for Huriyat leaders was that of the petitioner, not of the government. The Hurriyat leaders haven’t accepted the Indian Constitution, don’t contest elections, and this raises valid questions on their legitimacy and acceptability by the people of Kashmir, whom they claim to represent. Some seek an independent Kashmir, and some of them want the merger of Kashmir with Pakistan.
This makes them “separatists”, and places them at odds with us. But by no stretch of the imagination can the Hurriyat leaders be called “terrorists”, no matter how objectionable many Indians, including Kashmiris, may find their actions and words. Some Hurriyat leaders and their political ancestors were linked with mainstream political parties, and some were bomb-throwers. But as the Supreme Court has noted, no Hurriyat leader has been booked for terrorism-related offences. That makes the petitioner’s observations wholly misplaced. India is a capacious democracy which allows for free expression of political opinion of every kind. But its Constitution draws the line at violence in support of any cause, political or social. This applies to the Hurriyat too, and they know it. The State does keep an eye on their activities, specially since Kashmir is on the border. But “terrorism” is something else.
