The dramatic turn of world events in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, especially the rout of the Taliban-Al Qaeda in Afghanistan had its echoes in Kashmir. Soon after the US military blitzkrieg in Afghanistan, as public euphoria about an “indomitable Taliban” and an “invincible Osama Bin Laden” faded away in Kashmir, its political landscape saw a sudden change. Although September 11 did not influence the situation on the ground in Kashmir, a lot has changed politically. 

   The aircraft strikes in New York and Washington were by and large noted in Kashmir with pride and satisfaction. For this Muslim majority region, they were a symbol of the “Muslim response to the long history of Western hegemony over the world.” These expressions of pride and happiness were discernible on the streets; press articles in the Valley provided evidence of a sense of euphoria about the attacks. However, political groups like the All Parties Hurriyat Conference did not seem to share the public mood. Privately, many of its leaders took the position that the attacks would, in the long run, harm the interests of the resistance movement in Kashmir. 

   As President Pervez Musharraf put Pakistan’s weight behind the US war in Afghanistan, the Srinagar-based Chief Military Observer of the United Nations Military Observers Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), Maj  Gen Hermann K Lydott, held a news conference in Srinagar on 30 October and hinted at possible US intervention in Kashmir. The statement of the UN mission did not surprise people in the Valley. The general feeling was that the statement hinted at possible US humanitarian intervention in Kashmir, that Pakistan had extracted from the US in exchange of its support to the war against terror. Newspapers in Srinagar shared this belief and wrote editorials welcoming the UN stand “as timely.” The UN mission statement made people in Kashmir forget the war in Afghanistan. However, this public euphoria was very short lived. After New Delhi lodged a strong protest, a spokesperson of the UN Secretary General dismissed Maj Gen Hemann’s statement as “personal, nothing to do with the UN’s stated position on the Kashmir issue.” 

   The fact remains that the APHC spent much time then in watching the situation, making few public appearances. Much of their thinking was focussed on trying to erase the impression that the Kashmiri armed struggle was a part of the international phenomenon of terrorism. Nervous over Indian attempts to depict the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad, designated as terrorist organisations by the US, before the international community as part of the larger pan-Islamist terror campaign, the separatist camp appeared short of ideas to present their struggle as an “indigenous one for the right of self determination of the Kashmiri people.” 

   The Hurriyat leaders, like the slain Abdul Gani Lone, held that “the jehadi groups had no business to operate in Kashmir.” This made the Hurriyat chairman, Abdul Gani Bhat, and other leaders of the APHC take stock of the unfolding situation. After consultations, Bhat and other executive members of the APHC, excluding Syed Ali Shah Gilani, announced a comprehensive ceasefire by all three warring parties in Kashmir - India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri militants at a press conference on 12 November. However, it had no impact, as during that time both India and Pakistan were busy scoring points against each other. 

   There was greater unease in the separatist camp about the role of non-Kashmiri militants. They were as being oblivious to the political and diplomatic conditions characterising the emerging geo-political scenario in the international system. This became clear on 20 November, when the Deputy C-in-C of the Hizbul Mujahideen (HM), Asaz Yazdani, expressed his reservations about the role of foreign militants in crucial policy matters in Kashmir. Yazdani’s statement was followed by clarifications by the HM, and his replacement. 

   However, the global mood against terrorism had little impact on militancy in Kashmir. That has been proven by a number of high-profile attacks since then, which included an attack on the J&K Assembly in October. Although the political leadership of the separatist camp has made some “policy corrections” to address the concerns of the international community on terrorism, the militants have been carrying on their activities despite a clamp down on their activities in Pakistan and its occupied Kashmir.