That by naming Narendra Modi as its Prime-Ministerial candidate the BJP would be inviting widespread criticism as well as creating a massive controversy within political circles was a foregone conclusion. However, few would have ever expected that Modi would also be a reason for the further widening of fissures within the Hurriyat conglomerate by becoming the topic of a verbal duel of unprecedented proportions between the “hardliners” and “moderates”. However, many Kashmir watchers are of the opinion that this unpleasant development is just a physical manifestation of the ongoing ‘turf war’ between the Geelani and Mirwaiz factions of the Hurriyat. They contend that the ever-growing differences between the two separatist leaders were bound to erupt into a rhetorical conflagration sooner or later and that Modi has just been used as a convenient ‘trigger’!
In order to make some sense out of all the nonsense going around, let’s briefly recount as to what led to the present state of affairs. During a press conference at his Hyderpora residence on his return to Srinagar, the Hurriyat (G) chairman SAS Geelani claimed that two Kashmiri pandits who were Modi’s emissaries had discreetly approached him on March, 22 and asked him to “talk to Narendra Modi to get his commitment on Kashmir issue.” The Hurriyat (G) chairman also clarified that he had point- blankly refused to do so since Modi was a “RSS man.” At that time, some correspondents thought that SAS Geelani had merely mentioned this incident to prove his oft-repeated claim that the ongoing struggle in Kashmir was being ‘sabotaged’ by those in the seat of power in New Delhi through secret agreements with some separatist leaders.
There was nothing wrong in what the Hurriyat (G) said thus far. However, to everyone’s surprise, he inexplicably went on to add that, “Those who say that Modi’s policy will be soft after he becomes PM and those who have expectations from him may have actually met Modi’s men in Kashmir.” While the Hurriyat (G) chairman was careful not to name anyone, but that the reference was being made to the Mirwaiz was more than obvious, since it was the Hurriyat (M) chairman who had recently voiced his ‘great expectations’ for Kashmir if Modi became the PM. Stung by this allegation, the Mirwaiz hit back hard at SAS Geelani, questioning his credibility by saying, “Geelani can’t advise others on Kashmir when he has contested elections 12 times. Who the hell is Geelani?” With this harsh statement, the ongoing feud between the Hurriyat, which had been simmering all along, has unfortunately once again come out in the open and this time, it is unlikely to subside soon.
Though differences in opinion are bound to exist within any conglomerate, these can be accepted and accommodated without prejudice to the common objectives, provided they are restricted only to ideological issues. However, once they degenerate into clashes involving personalities and become problems related to egos, it is not the leaders but the movement that actually suffers. And from what one can make out from this episode, it is evident that this is exactly what is happening. So, what is the remedy?
There is no doubt that even though SAS Geelani and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq may not see eye to eye and do hold different views on how to take the movement for the ‘right to self determination’ forward, yet it cannot be denied that both their Hurriyat factions are genuinely committed to the same cause. Therefore, it is rather unfortunate that instead of concentrating on how to evolve a common strategy, these leaders are casting aspersions on each other. And while the separatists accuse the mainstream politicians of ‘spreading confusion amongst the people’, they themselves are doing no better! This creates a paradoxical situation that raises an important question- how can the Hurriyat ask the people to shed their personal differences and unite when this conglomerate itself is doing otherwise?
Coming back to the incident being discussed- while the Geelani and Mirwaiz camps may blame each other’s leader for ‘firing the first shot’, the undeniable fact is that both are at fault and need to accept the same. There is no doubt that the reaction of the Mirwaiz certainly lacks civility, but then, by pointing a finger of suspicion at him, hasn’t the venerable Hurriyat (G) chairman too shown considerable insensitivity towards the Mirwaiz? While Geelani sahib may well be the tallest figure in the separatist fraternity, the Mirwaiz is certainly no inconsequential pygmy and he has his own standing, both in Kashmir as well as internationally. Moreover, the ‘Golden rule’ in public life is that while one is free to discuss and even speculate on matters directly concerning him, any suggestion or allegation which demeans a colleague is best avoided, especially when the same are unsubstantiated!
The Hurriyat (G) chairman has no doubt been rendering a yeoman service for resolution of the Kashmir issue. However, while he may be well meaning, the venerable Geelani sahib is unfortunately following an inflexible approach and unwilling to consider any other alternatives for the amicable resolution of the Kashmir crisis. Though his rigid stance of seeking a solution strictly as per UN resolutions through a plebiscite has complete legitimacy, it is not easy to implement due to the existing situation. Whether he likes it or not, the fact is that with Pakistan occupying portions of Kashmir and allowing non Kashmiris to permanently settle in these areas, as well as ceding some areas of Kashmir to China, holding of a plebiscite as envisaged in the UN resolutions is well nigh impossible. Therefore, just calling for implementation of UN resolutions in Indian administered Kashmir is futile as it violates the fundamentals of very UN resolutions through which the Hurriyat (G) chairman seeks to resolve the Kashmir imbroglio.
The Mirwaiz on the other hand appears to have adopted a more practical approach to the problem and does not seem to be unduly shackled by provisions of the UN resolutions. He has amply demonstrated that while he does respect the sanctity of the UN resolutions, he is also open to any alternative that can resolve the Kashmir issue as per the aspirations of its people. Probably, it is this is that has enraged the Hurriyat (G) chairman who considers the Mirwaiz’s approach as a ‘sell-out’ and so he loses no opportunity to attack him. Thus, the ongoing feud between the two Hurriyat leaders is not regarding the ultimate aim of the ongoing struggle in Kashmir to achieve the ‘right to self determination’, but a clash between the ideologies of obduracy and flexibility. And since the policy of ‘my way or the highway’ is pitted against that of ‘ends justify the means’, there is a dying need for the intellectuals and civil society to intervene immediately and resolve this crisis, as it is harming the ongoing movement.
In normal life, it is common that whenever a particular line of medication fails to yield any positive results even after a prolonged period, doctors always consider an alternative course of treatment. I am sure that the intellectuals and members of the civil society can apply their minds and consider whether the same analogy can be applied to firstly, bringing about a rapprochement between the feuding Hurriyat leaders and then evolving a comprehensive strategy to reinvigorate the movement for the ‘right to self determination.’ On their part, the Hurriyat leaders also need to realise that in the end, all that the people of Kashmir yearn for is the early resolution of the Kashmir problem so that peace finally returns and whether the same is achieved by implementing the UN resolutions or otherwise, means little to them. So, if this is what the people of Kashmir really desire, what is the harm in exploring other alternatives?