Book Review: The rage and confusion of Gowhar Geelani

 Book: Kashmir: Rage and Reason

Author: Gowhar Geelani

Publisher: Rupa Publication

Pages: 288

 

inam ul rehman

The “Rage and Reason”, Gowhar Geelani, believes is because of the Indian state policies toward Kashmir! Paradoxically he cites an example of a mechanical engineer, Maseehullah, working in Jalandar Punjab, joining militant ranks. It was Maseehullah’s study of Islam that prompted him to join the call of, what he believed, jihad. 

 

The author here, like a skilled politician, spins the narrative, and writes that the protest of 2008 against the grant of land to the Amarnath shrine board made many to think that it was an attempt to change the demography, and it was this event which forced Maseehullah! Although the latter’s father clearly states that it was Islam which made him to pick the gun against the state. Even his father supports that the land belongs to Allah, and His laws should govern people here. 

 

In fact, throughout the book author negates his own assertions. He says that armed movement of the 90s started because people were “displeased by the façade of democracy”, but later calls all those people naïve who link the armed movement with the wide scale rigging of 87 assembly elections! Here is another example of contradiction when the author says that the majority community backed the armed movement, but a couple of pages later writes, “Our literature was bloody. It was not our choice, though. Some choices are not of our own.”

 

The author confuses dissent, and secession from the state. States tolerate dissent, but are brutal toward secession. Like most Kashmiris he asks; why does the state fire bullets, and pellets on crowds that are demanding secession from the Indian state! Like most he is also confused why the Indian media is belligerent toward Kashmiris demanding azaadi!As a Kashmiri who supposedly wants to part away from the Indian state why should it rankle him that its media is “aggressive” toward Kashmir? Shouldn’t the author feel happy that half of the work to discredit the state is being done by the Indian national media? 

  

But since the author’s linear theme in the book is action-reaction he frames everything from this prism. 

 

He also opines that the militancy is “largely symbolic”. It is erroneous assessment that many pro-thereek intellectuals claim to show that Kashmiris are victims, not the initiators of secession. The militants take up gun because they believe that it is jihad to fight against the Indian state, and it is this religious zeal that does not let almost all of them to surrender even though many of them have no weapons to fight, and prefer death to surrender. The author quoting former Hurriyat Corporation chief, Syed Ali Geelani, compares militants of Kashmir with Indian revolutionary Bhagat Singh, and co.! Now, Bhagat Singh was an atheist, and socialist. Can the author be brave enough to tell the families of Kashmiri militants that their sons aren’t martyrs because it was not for the sake of religion that they sacrificed themselves?

 

In order to be in the good books of the Jamaat and its supporters the author equates Geelani with the legendary Libyan fighter, Omar Mukhtar! He writes that Geelani won hattrick of elections, which is factually wrong, although remains silent that of the three Assembly election that Geelani won two are widely believed, by a vast section of the people of Kashmir, to have been rigged. Geelani also not only lost assembly elections, but fought for Indian parliament elections where he again lost. Sometimes he claims that Geelani is a supporter not a member of the Jamaat! But forgets his own words couple of pages later.  

The author begins with the 2016 Ragda protests after militant commander Burhan Wani along with his two associates were killed in a gun battle with Indian forces. Burhan Wani was the trendsetter for the 4g militants of Kashmir. (To understand what 4G militants mean refer to:https://kashmirdispatch.com/2015/02/02/the-4g-warriors-of-kashmir/129068/).

He came on the social media and stormed its space in Kashmir. In his first video message Burhan dropped a bombshell when he said that his fight is to establish Khilafat in the whole world. It was a shocking moment not only for the Hurriyat Corporation, but for pro-Pakistan supporters as well.  However, the author says it was “a casual remark”, with a “moderate message”.Suppose the RSS leader comes to the Valley and in his first public speech he says that he wants to establish Ram Rajya in the whole of Jammu and Kashmir, and the same speech will be interspersed with allowing Muslims to travel for pilgrimage. Will the author be generous to say that the RSS leader’s talk of Ram Rajya was just a casual thing, and a moderate one?

 

The author further alleges it was not any “global jihadi ideology” that inspired Burhan, because he didn’t have “deep understanding of religion”.  This is as ridiculous as it can get. “Global jihadi ideology” does not require “deep understanding of Islam” any Muslim can join and fight for it. The author claims that officially Hizb has never endorsed Khalifat! What Burhan said in 2015 was the official slogan of the Hizb in the 90s. But the author is unaware of it! 

                                          

The book is filled with such intellectual dishonest views. Take for example referring Tral area as “Tora Bora of Kashmir”. Now the US led coalition minus nuclear weapons used every bomb in its arsenal to turn Tora Bora upside down.  Tral has not witnessed any such thing. In fact, nowhere in Kashmir India has resorted to aerial bombardment. In fact, the only time the Indian state seriously thought of using planes to bomb militants was the Doda area where the militants went berserk against Indian troops. 

 

His intellectual disability comes to the fore when he writes that why should “the majority community be held hostage to the aspirations of the minority?” when it’s the former that has suffered.In any civilised society it is the majority community which has to not only protect the minorities but give them freedom to express themselves, no matter whether they participate in the freedom movement or not, whether they agree with the majority community or not. If the majority community fails to provide security to its minorities then it has no right to demand justice for itself which it denies to others. 

 

Then author repeats his various write-ups published in different media outlets over the decade, but hyperbolically states that from “a young age, a Kashmir is exposed to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Karl Marx, Nitzsche, Camus, Fanon, Schimmel,” et al.  If it had been the case then we would not have been reading this book. Now take Gowhar as an example of reading these authors juxtapose it with his comment wherein he says that Kashmir’s first pro-India Prime Minister, Sheikh Abdullah’s, status today can be judged that his grave needs protection! It’s a puerile observation. Isn’t Jinnah’s grave protected? The fact of the matter is that if people had so much hatred against Sheikh, as we are made to believe, in 2008, 10, and 16, they had golden opportunity to desecrate his grave with only a couple of guards there! 

 

There is a certain snobbish attitude running throughout the book. One example among the plethora of such is when he writes that why do bright students end up joining the armed movement! As if armed movement is hereditary of dumb people. He tries hard to exonerate the former chief minister, Mehbooba Mufti, for what she did since 2016. His softness toward Mehbooba Mufti is perhaps because he was one among many journalists who used to council her during 2016. 

 

Not that the book is deprived of a few bright spots. The author writes that some Kashmiris intense love for Pakistan “will surpass the proudest and most patriotic Pakistanis”, but will leave “a few Pakistanis to doubt their nationalism and patriotism.”  He also mentions the duplicity of the Jamaat-i-Islami, but makes Burhan Wani’s father to speak up on the Jamaat hypocrisy of provoking people to take up the gun, but the politico-religious party maintains it does not support the gun! 

Reading the book one gets an impression that its author is a wannabe politician. 

 

 

 

Some factual howlers in the book are:  

It was not under governor Jagmohan Malhotra that renegades were patronised in Kashmir. 

Zareef Ahmad Zareef is satirical poet, not a historian. 

Maqbool Bhat’s slogan of independent Kashmir didn’t make him an instant hero in Kashmir, and Mohammad Yusuf Shah alias Syed Salahuddin was not “immensely popular” in the 80s.

Mohammad Yaseen Malik, and Javid Mir were not “young boys” in 1987, but one was 21 years old, and the other was 26 years old. 

 In 2016, people didn’t follow the protest calendar of the Hurriyat Corporation in letter and spirit. In fact, the Hurriyat give a one-day strike call to protest the killing of Burhan! Only when the protest amplified, and people refused to resume normal activities did the Hurriyat call for more strikes.  

After the killing of Burhan, Zakir Musa was declared the divisional commander of the HM, not Sabzar Bhat. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You cannot shame a state into submission

inam ul Rehman

 

It has been 30 years since the Kashmiris picked up gun against the Indian system. If someone says nothing has changed then he must be put into a mental asylum. What hasn’t changed is that the Kashmiris fight to redraw the boundary continues.

 

So, what has the Kashmiri leadership, pro-resistance intellectuals learned in the past 30 years about the Indian state? Apparently, nothing. From trying to physically evict India from Kashmir, the Kashmiri leadership, and pro-resistance intellectuals are now trying to shame the Indian state into submission! No state in the world can be shamed into submission, especially when it comes to secession.

 

Sadly, there has been no concerted effort to understand the Indian state. No Tehreeki intellectual writes on the Indian state. How does it work? What galvanises it?what riles it?what holds it together?what are its underbellies?what makes it to fear?what will make India to give up its claim on Kashmir? What keeps it united? Who are its policy makers? Who are its doves and hawks? What are its strengths and weaknesses? Is India a monolith, or comprises of disgruntled communities? What worries it: economic collapse, or territorial loss? What will make it to concede defeat? What keeps India united despite tonnes of problems? How is India able to hold Kashmir? How one has to engage India in order to weaken its grip on Kashmir? How are the people going to defeat a state that is militarily, politically, economically, and influentially strong, and seemingly unending?

 

No Tehreeki intellectual writes on it. You cannot defeat an adversary unless you take note of his qualities.  Instead most of them study in Indian, or western universities come here to research on Kunan-Poshpora, Asiya-Neelofar ‘rape’ murder, Gaw Kadal killings, et al. But one does not find any research on why the rebellion of the 90s failed?

 

The early 90s was an era in Kashmir when militants had paralysed the security grid of the Indian state. Nothing seemed to work for India. The world pressure on India was mounting so much that a US diplomat Robin Raphel said in a press conference that her country does not recognise the instrument of accession (https://kashmirlife.net/the-diplomatic-secret-issue-45-vol-06-72233/)

 

And, then happened the surrender of militants at the Dargah Hazratbal siege after 31 days in 93, that helped the Indian state to score points. What impact it had on the psyche of Kashmiris, and Indian institutions regaining control on Kashmir? Why militants went after each other? Most Kashmiri researchers, unfortunately like the Tehreeki leadership, are interested only in shaming the Indian state not to understand its matrix!

 

Look at the intellectuals of India. Every year they write books on Kashmir, tell the Indian state where it needs to tighten up, where it needs to loose its grip; what concessions it needs to give, what it needs to hold back. There is hardly any speck of the Tehreek or the Kashmiri society that they have not touched. And as usual most Tehreeki intellectuals dismiss these books. Why? Because these intellectuals want that Indian writers should take up the cause of Kashmir! That India media should pedal Kashmiri narrative of secession!  Like a lazy native we want our work to be outsourced as well.

 

Here I recollect one instance among many. In 2008, when protests against transfer of land to Amarnath shrine snowballed into forceful closure of Jammu-Srinagar highway by the Hindu extremists leading the Valley people to protest in favour of opening up Muzzaffarabad road that resulted in killing around 60 protestors, and fall of the coalition government of the PDP-Congress. I saw a renowned Indian journalist, Prem Shankar Jha, arguing in one news channel that the Government of India should immediately announce election dates to quell these protests to become a norm. It was strange observation which looked out of place because the national newspapers of Kashmir give an impression that the whole of Kashmir was in protest mood. When the assembly election dates were announced a lot of political observers, journalists, intellectuals of Kashmir stated that the GoI has erred because not many voters would cast their votes. People coming to vote in droves were a shocking moment, and a moment to introspect. The victory of sex scandal accused Congress leader, GA Mir, in these elections was astounding. But our media, experts, intellectuals, rather than accepting it spun a facade that voting is only for municipal grievances, and vote does not mean secession from the azaadi sentiment. This ruse continues to be in the market. The Indian journalist was spot on while our own political pundits try to fit excuses as study.  

 

Kashmiri intellectuals are not prepared to ask hard, rationale, and difficult questions to themselves.  During elections in Kashmir most Tehreeki people, in order to stop people from voting, put quixotic things before voters. They tell people that by exercising their democratic right you are betraying the blood of people who died for the Tehreek! But, in 1947, according to the Tehreeki hagiographers, between some thousands to two lakh people were murdered or displaced from the Jammu region: why then from 1971 to 89 it did not became betrayal to contest elections and cast votes? Or, why does not anyone who took part during those elections apologise? Why is vote considered a betrayal but taking blood money and job in lieu of killing by the government forces not? How is election boycott going to help those Tehreeki organisations which harp on independent-democratic Kashmir? How are Islamists (who harp on Islamic democracy) going to convince people to vote for the same democracy post azaadi?  If India and Pakistan have to solve this issue then why should Kashmiris die? What kind of character building the Tehreeki people have done?

 

Let us face it, building the character of a nation is the most difficult thing, and no Tehreeki organisation has done it, so far. And no Tehreeki organisation has the stamina, and structure to do it. Then how is Kashmir going to get independence from India?how is Kashmiri leadership going to bring India on the negotiating table?

 

Thirty years and we have not a single book on the Indian state! Its institutions, political parties, bureaucracy, army, and people, no one writes on these. Like everyone else India has doves and hawks, but Kashmiris have been made to believe that India is a monolith country.

 

Shaming a state into submission has never worked. States are not constructed on morals, instead they are constructed on human bones plastered with blood. Shame is for individuals, states are bereft of it. Almost all nation states are besieged with problems of secession. Every state is brutal against rebellious resistance. To preserve its sovereignty the state doesn’t care for world opinion, and every state does support methods to preserve sovereignty of any nation.

 

Kashmiri writers, authors, try to shame India by calling it “rapistan”, “In-defecation”, country of poor, intolerant people, et al. But why is India, despite besieged with conflicts, poverty, communalism, and untouchability, successful in holding Kashmir? These questions are never asked, never answered, never put into public domain. Isn’t it shamelessness that people of such “race” are ruling Kashmiris, who vainly consider themselves as an intelligent race? Or, are Kashmiris dour shameless than Indians?

 

To defeat an adversary one has to first understand it, and give it a respect that every opponent deserves. Despite many armed insurgencies going on in India it has not given an inch of land to anyone. India is such a country that when it is unable to solve any conflict it does business with it. The same Indian state in Manipur, Assam, and Meghalaya gives a monthly stipend, and government land to rebels for holding on to ceasefire (Mother, where is my country by Anubha Bhonsle). If Kashmir is not getting azaadi it is not because Kashmiris are not giving sacrifices it is because the adversary has not been studied, and given its due credit.

 

 

 

 

 

Long read. Are Indo, Pak, US involve in spot fixing for resolution of the Kashmir conflict?

Reneging Article 370 

inam ul rehman

Unlike match fixing where the outcome of the match is decided, and needs most influential players to be part of it, spot fixing is betting about some parts of the game without the support of influential players and does not necessarily impact the outcome.   

When the US Department of State declared chief of the United Jihad Council, Syed Salahuddin, as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist on June 26, 2017, no one in Kashmir asked what interest the USA has in it. It was in keeping with the tradition of “we know it is India’s conspiracy”. Salahudidn is neither an ideologue nor a fighter, never attacked or threatened American interests, and believes in democracy. By declaring him as its enemy wasn’t the USA getting directly involved in the Kashmir dispute? It means that India has to accept Kashmir as an international dispute because the US bracketed Salahuddin among its enemy, which also ticks the vital column which the Pakistan backed Hurriyat Corporation wants (https://kashmirobserver.net/2016/local-news/geelani-writes-world-leaders-lists-6-cbms-8632) 

Two years later, the US president Donald Trump declares that he is ready to mediate for the settlement of Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan (https://in.reuters.com/article/india-usa-kashmir/trump-touches-off-storm-in-india-with-kashmir-mediation-offer-idINKCN1UI0IL). And this settlement is not to give independence to Kashmir, or merge it into Pakistan. With Trump’s announcement on mediation the veil of secrecy has been taken off.

In fact, way back in April 2007, a US state department official revealed that both the countries had accepted the “main elements of a settlement”, but, said the official, “whether they would be willing and able to muster the political will to bring that revolution about”. (The limits of influence: America’s role in Kashmir by Howard B Schaffer). According to ambassador Schaffer it was on the US recommendations that roads were opened, bus service launched, people to people contact developed, even the dry port for which Dr Haseeb Drabu took credit was the brainchild of the US!

Immediately after Trump’s mediation offer the Indian state reneged the Article 370, separated Ladakh from Jammu and Kashmir, and made both of them as union territories, the former without legislature and the latter with a legislature. While the state has held its territory firmly it has been successful in regularly changing the goal posts of the Kashmiris.

From 1953-75, Kashmiris demanded plebiscite but the state kept downgrading the autonomy which Kashmiris enjoyed upto 1953. Then with the signing up of Indra-Sheikh accord, Kashmiri leaders made the Congress party its enemy, and demanded restoration of pre-1953 position. Now from 2019, Kashmiri leaders are fighting for domicile rights, restoration of Articles 370, 35A, and think that the BJP is enemy rather than the state! This flip-flop has always been a bane for Kashmiri resistance.  

A few days later the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, in a speech said that 42,000 innocent people have lost their lives in Kashmir over the past three decades, and once the situation in Kashmir normalises statehood would be returned. It was a significant sentence in his otherwise drab monologue. The official figure of 42 thousand killed include militants, local and foreign, civilians, and Indian security forces. To classify militants as innocents is a huge statement coming from the PM of India, who is also a leader of the militant Hindu organisation, RSS. This sentence of his was maybe aimed to assuage the fears of stakeholders in Kashmir, and Pakistan.  

Connecting the dots

In a fledgling Urdu news magazine of the daily Greater Kashmir, “Nawa-e-Jhelum” there appeared a cover story on Afghanistan and Kashmir of March 4, 2018 issue. Inside the pages one story was titled, “The Taliban’s offer of peace talks: can Pakistan bargain successfully on Kashmir?” (http://epaper.nawaejhelum.com). The second story was, “After the Taliban it is the United Jihad Council? If the peace process in Afghanistan succeeds Kashmir is next” (http://epaper.nawaejhelum.com).  Ostensibly the byline on both the write-ups mention “Nawa e Jhelum” desk!

Important points of these two articles:

US president’s hard policy toward Pakistan has forced the Taliban to offer peace talks since the latter fears that Pakistan may withdraw its support under pressure!

Pakistan kept the US forces engaged in Afghanistan for 17 years!

For Kashmir Pakistan has always bargained with America in Afghanistan! “But nothing has been achieved as far as Kashmir is considered.”

The Taliban’s peace offer is good for Kashmir!

Pakistan’s defence and economic ties with the People's Republic of China has given a stern answer to America’s ‘do more’ ‘with no more’”!

Cooperation with China coupled with Pakistan ascendency in Afghanistan has forced India to be flexible on Kashmir!

“If the Pakistan’s plan of bargaining succeeds, Kashmiris would heave a sigh of relief after years of strangulation.”

The second write-up is mostly a repetition of the first one.

But author condescendingly asks: In lieu of successful peaceful negotiations in Afghanistan what is America going to offer Pakistan? “If Pakistan is able to put the hard bargain on the table there are chances that after Kabul it is the turn of Kashmir. Chances of militant movement turning into political are bright with the UJC emerging as the potent political force like the Taliban, and Salahuddin along with his associates may come to Kashmir triumphantly, cases would be withdrawn, there will be exchange of prisoners. Remember Kulbushan Jadhav (alleged Indian spy) is still in the custody of Pakistan.”

Sensing that if this deal is pulled off successfully, they write, there will be division of opinion because the UJC and the Hurriyat would emerge as the largest potent force which would be irritant for pro-India parties. Even if, caution anonymous writers, pro-India parties are included in this grand structure there is no guarantee that they would not derail it. But a grand alliance (between pro-Pakistan lobby and pro-Kashmiri electoral parties) should be formed in Kashmir. It stresses that elections and the resolution of Kashmir should be fused together! Then it asserts that since Pakistan would not accept the current status quo, the UN on the insistence of Pakistan has to conduct elections in both the divided parts of Kashmir. Once election results are approved then those elected will be given mandate to decide on Kashmir. “At that time,” write the anonymous author/s condescendingly, “Kashmiris will realise that they should have done their homework long back.”

The things mentioned in the cover story are almost similar to what the US ambassador has written regarding what India Pakistan agreed in 2007. 

But if you think its an outrageous write up that claims Salahudin along with his coterie can come to Kashmir and join the election process then look at Hafiz Sayeed of the Lashkar-i-Toiba in Pakistan. Sayeed would openly declare democracy as kufr (not believing in Allah and His Messenger (SAW). Salahuddin holds no such claims. He has contested elections and believes in democracy. So, it is not a big thing to rehabilitate the UJC chief. The parent party of the Hizb-ul-Mujhaideen (the largest indigenous militant group of which Salahuddin is the lifetime chief), Jamaat-i-Islami has no objection to contest elections in Kashmir, as well. Its former head, Mohammad Abdullah Wani, in an interview, said, “Jamaat needs peaceful environment to contest elections” (http://kashmirlife.net/jamaat-e-islami-needs-peaceful-environment-to-contest-elections-issue-45-vol-06-72231/). The Jamaat has contested elections even in the 70s when the then pro-resistance party gave election boycott call. Even in the notorious 87 elections, which the Jamaat says were rigged, its MLAs refused to resign in protest but “run without shoes to take oath to protect the Indian sovereignty and uphold its constitution”.

After these write ups appeared, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, and Yaseen Malik, file a joint petition in the State Human Rights Commission over shifting of prisoners to outside jails, addressing the commission “May it please your Honor and the commission”! Now those who claim to fight the Indian state are pleading before its institutions to save its skin.  

Here is another example.  On March 13, 2018, the JK high court bar association said that it is, “treachery and betrayal with the sacrifices given by the people of Kashmir for achieving their right of self-determination.” If you think that this statement came in response to any pro-resistance leader joining pro-India politics, you are wrong.  This statement, from one of the constitute parties of the Hurriyat, was in response to the then finance minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Dr Haseeb Drabu, who reportedly said that Kashmir is a social issue rather than a political one (http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/hcba-ridicules-drabu-s-kashmir-not-a-political-issue-statement/278566.html). 

Mian Abdul Qayoom heads the HCBA. He is dear to Hurriyat chairman, Geelani. What prompted him to accuse a pro-India politician of “treachery and betrayal with the sacrifices”? It is a question that intellectuals, pro-freedom, pro-Pakistan people, Hurratified journalists, should have asked to Mian Qayoom. But no one did.

How did the Kashmir conflict reach to this?

In 2014, al Qaeda announced the formation of its franchise in the Indian subcontinent. Immediately after its formation many things took place in Kashmir. The firebrand Hurriyat leader, Masarat Alam Bhat, was released on March 6, 2015 (https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/groundwork-for-masarat-alams-release-done-before-mufti-sayeed-took-charge-sources-tell-ndtv-745354). A month later to the surprise of the people the trio of Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar, Malik, together share a dais at a mourning of a youth who was killed by Indian forces  (http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/jk-separatist-leaders-share-dais-after-seven-years/article7123952.ece). Geelani, an Islamist, whose militant party denounced Malik, termed his party as irreligious in the 90s and killed his party’s militants because of it, now joins him! This unity was no doubt pushed by Pakistan. And the release of Alam and other political prisoners may have been orchestrated by Indo-Pak efforts. The coming together of Geelani, Mirwaiz, and Malik put brakes on the leakage of news coming from closed-door meetings with government emissaries, or Track II personalities. Slowly the second rung leaders of both the Hurriyat factions that include, Shabir Shah, Nayeem Khan, et al, were arrested. Remember in spot fixing you need only a limited number of players.  

Things were going according to the plan when militant commander Burhan Wani in his first video message asked the people of Kashmir to fight for the establishment of Khilafat. Hurriyat insiders say it ruffled the leadership, which in turn sent a former militant to counsel Burhan to refrain from such utterance. But Burhan refused to bow down. A few months later Burhan along with his two associates was killed, protests in support of militant activities reached to its crescendo. Due to regular protests in favour of militants the counter insurgency grid of the state got paralysed during those six months. Slowly, as the conflict managers, the Hurriyat was able to bring the situation under control.

But there was shock for the Hurriyat, Pakistan and India. Out came Zakir Musa with renewed call for establishment of Khilafat throwing Pakistan and its client party Hurriyat in disarray. Before these two, many militant commanders died fighting for it during the 90s. The Hurriyat initially thought it was a reckless uttering which would find no takers in Kashmir, or he would be maligned as an enemy provocateur just like Qayoom Najar. But Musa proved iron willed and refused to budge from his demand of Shariyat ya Shahadat. The Indian authorities worst nightmare of Kashmiris becoming radicals: renouncing democracy, secularism, and the nation state had come true. Shortly afterwards global outfit, al Qaeda in the Indian subcontinent, in June 2017, took Musa under its umbrella.

It drastically altered the situation in Kashmir. For once, the Hurriyat was no longer in control of militants. Although the police reports try to negate that al Qaeda has a significant presence in Kashmir but the ground situation for the past one-decade is pointing differently.

The waving of black flags which al Qaeda uses, and made famous or notorious by ISIS, was not done, as is the usual chatter, in 2014, but two years before it the same flag was also waved in Kashmir during anti-Israel protests. No one objected to it. Since many journalists, and newspapers in Kashmir are Hurriyatfied they did not notice the flag. In fact, a few witnesses said that some months later the same flag again made appearance during the protests on the hanging of Afzal Guru, but journalists in the Valley were unable to note its significance! 

This digression toward the flag is to emphasise that the tehreek was becoming glocal, but the Hurriyatfied newspapers in Kashmir were busy in selling the canard that the tehreek in Kashmir is secular and for independence!

How are glocal militant organisations al Qaeda, ISIS, different from others?

For any state it is easy to control rebel groups if they are remote controlled by another state. This has happened and is happening. Kashmir is a prime example of it. In September 2018, talks were called off following the killing of three SPOs by the Pakistan backed Hizb militants (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-calls-off-meeting-between-sushma-and-pakistans-foreign-minister/article25008026.ece+) Since then the killing of SPOs has been winded up. During the 2019 Indian parliamentary elections in south Kashmir the Pakistani backed militants did not fire a single aerial shot ostensibly on the directions of Pakistan.

During the 80s when the Khalistani militants of the Punjab increased urban offence India decided to strike back in Pakistan to rein in these militants (https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/indias-new-language-of-killing/article5963505.ece).  This ploy was successful. It has always proved to be.

When the government of India finally scrapped articles 370. 35A, Pakistani prime minister, Imran Khan, in his September 18 speech told his audience: "If someone from Pakistan goes to India and he thinks he will fight in Kashmir ... the first person he will be inflicting cruelty on is the Kashmiris. He will have acted as an enemy of the Kashmiris." (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/09/khan-warns-pakistanis-joining-anti-india-fight-kashmir-190918155507989.html)

A month later on October 27, a day when in 1947 Indian army entered the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, and generally observed as a day of strike in Kashmir, Khan made his stand clear that any armed movement in Kashmir is against the interest of Pakistan: "Some elements in ‘Azad Jammu and Kashmir’ are instigating Jihad and armed struggle against the Indian forces which will deal a great amount of damage to the Kashmir cause, and is against the interest of Pakistan as well." In the same video message Khan said that the fight in Kashmir is political thus depriving legitimacy of Islamist pro-Pak militant organisations like the Hizb, LeT, and JeM.   (https://tribune.com.pk/story/2088249/pm-imran-takes-nation-confidence-kashmir-issue).

 Since, al Qaeda, and ISIS have no state backing they operate on their own. Their working mechanism is different. No state can put pressure on other state to rein in them. These two organisations through their striking capabilities have made borders invisible for them. 

The coming of these two global outfits in Kashmir may have forced the US to push India-Pakistan to expedite the dialogue process and settle the issue. Much like in the 90s when the US, along with China, Russia, and Pakistan coerced the warring factions of mujahedeen in Afghanistan to form a joint government to thwart the Taliban. 

 

The Afghan, CPEC connection

Most states in dealing with conflicts and problems work like doctors. For the Indian state, the Taliban (al Qaeda and the Taliban are indistinguishable now) ruling Afghanistan once again is dangerous for the Kashmir conflict. The Taliban taking over means that militants fighting for the establishment of Sharia–anywhere in the world–now have a safe sanctuary in Afghanistan.

To thwart al Qaeda, and Islamic State in Kashmir the Indian state needs a bulwark against it. Since al Qaeda bases its fight on the basis of Islam, state thinks a counterforce coloured in Islam can curb its influence and thwart the plans of former. The National Conference, Peoples Democratic Party, Peoples League, and co, do not possess this material.  The coming together of pro-India parties, and then arresting its leaders seems an orchestrated move to create ripples of sympathy for them.

But the state needs a party which is Islamic in colour, but adhere to democracy, is ready to participate in elections, and wean away youth from these radical organisations. For all this to happen something was to be done. This the Indian state did by separating Ladakh from Kashmir, and Pakistan is in process of amalgamating Gilgit Baltistan, and Pak administered Kashmir.

The China Pakistan Economic Corridor was always going to impact the Kashmir conflict. Pakistan stamped its approval of status quo, with one part of Kashmir to remain with India and other with Pakistan, when it allowed communist China’s CPEC project to passage through the disputed territory of Gilgit Baltistan, and Pak administered Kashmir. No country in the world invests heavily in a conflict territory unless it gets firm assurance that status quo will not be altered.  With India deciding to up the ante of annexing the Pak administered Kashmir, China’s recent incursion into Ladakh may have been a tactic to warn India not to break the status quo.

For a long time a discourse was going on: why are the Kashmir based electoral parties and the Hurriyat not coming together to fight the dominance of the Indian state? When the Indian state threatened to remove the Article 370 all of them, barring the Hurriyat, came together to protect it. But, remember it was the Hurriyat which started the process of hartals against the amendment in the Indian constitution in the form of revoking Article 35A!

From grandiose Azaadi slogans to protect demography!

The fight in Kashmir since 1989 is for the secession from India. Now, a consensus is being developed in which protecting the demography of Kashmir is given preference over the secession.  Repelling of the Articles 370, 35A is now touted as the existential crisis for the Kashmiri people. The fight in Kashmir has now been turned against the BJP. It means that the Hurriyat may join electoral politics on the plank to keep the BJP away from gaining power in Kashmir, to stop demographic changes, and possibly to get both the statehood and Article 370 back. Already pro-Pakistan militant groups, HM, and the Lashkar-i-Toiba, have put up posters in support of the continuing strikes against the reneging of Article 370, and removal of statehood to Kashmiris. This way people would not say that the Hurriyat betrayed Kashmiris. It gels with what the anonymous author/s had stated above.

It seems a grand peace process of status quo would commence in which Kashmiris will be told that they should take it as a breaking of status quo, utilise the time to prepare for final battle, and not defy the might of the Indian state for sometime until appropriate time comes. It is expected that supporters of each of these parties would generally abide by this dictum.

The entry of the Hurriyat in electoral politics will also provide bulwark against the emerging al Qaeda, and Islamic State ideology in Kashmir.

The utility of the dialogue process

In April 2017, Germany’s non-profit organisation, Friedrich Ebert Foundation, committed to democracy, organised a conference between India, Pakistan, and Kashmiri representatives. According to newspaper reports “Speaker of Pakistan administered Kashmir assembly asked to form the group consisting of the representatives of both governments ruling two parts of Kashmir besides the Hurriyat leaders so they could suggest Islamabad and Delhi to resolve the issues,” (https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/198031-Pak-India-track-2-talks-held-in-Dubai). It is exactly on the lines of what the weekly Nawa-e-Jhelum story proposes.   Two months later the Indian army started its “operation all out” against 300 odd militants (https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/kashmir-terrorism-all-out-plan-lashkar-hizbul-jaish-militants-984216-2017-06-22). The “operation all out” got endorsement when in July 2017, Conciliation Resources, a British NGO working for the worldwide peace and reconciliation, held a conference in which men from powerful intelligence agencies of Indo-Pak, politicians from India, Pakistan, and Kashmir, Hurriyat members, and human rights activists from both sides took part. During this three-day conference held in Dubai, the members resolved the end of militancy in Kashmir and confidence building measures to solve the Kashmir conflict (https://kashmirreader.com/2017/08/16/divided-parts-kashmir-unanimous-call-end-militancy/). The UJC chief Salahuddin condemned this conference, and, as is his wont, termed the members on the payrolls of Indian agencies! If the same person had said such a thing a decade earlier it would have meant a death sentence for all the participants from Kashmir. But not this time. 

Then, comes the question, why are India, Pakistan, and Kashmir politicians reluctant to say this in public that almost a solution has been agreed upon by all the concerned parties?

“The hope,” writes Ameya Kilara, scholar with the Center for Public Leadership at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, “is that once these selfless heroes shake hands on a deal, their political masters will sign an agreement with shaky hands, before announcing to the world that peace has been delivered” (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/an-open-letter-to-the-people-of-india-on-the-kashmir-issue/article5885007.ece)

The Indian state has won this battle, too. But as we know in conflict the time is measured in decades.  The war to end the rhizome Kashmir conflict, as Praveen Swami reported in 2017 on AQIS threat, will be fought in mainland India.  (https://indianexpress.com/article/india/war-on-indian-cities-key-to-victory-in-kashmir-al-qaeda 5000310/#:~:text=In%20A%20video%20released%20online,waging%20war%20on%20Indian%20cities.&text=The%20jihadist%20also%20appeals%20to,allegiance%20to%20the%20Islamic%20State). It will be deadlier, costlier, and may see many South Asian states come together to fight the forces of Khilafat.  

Image courtesy: Getty Images, and The Hindu

 Note: The write up was written in August-September 2019, but due to the internet blockade in Kashmir was unable to post it. A few points have been updated from the original script.

For the “greater benefit of the tehreek," corruption and unaccountability were overlooked, confesses SA Geelani in his resignation letter

His letter validates what Zakir Musa, Qayoom Najar said years ago.  

inam ul rehman

In June this year, an audio conversation between the then Jaish-e-Mohammad chief of Kashmir, Mufti Waqas, and Ansar Ghazwatul Hind chief, Zakir Musa, was released by al Qaeda’s media platform. In the said conversation Mufti Waqas tells Musa that he has been to Afghanistan and fought there, “I swear the sacrifices,” he says, “that Kashmiris have given are unparalleled, but this nation has got traitor leaders.”

Jaish is a pro-Pakistan militant outfit, and in conflict with the AGH ideology. Here Mufti Waqas is talking in personal capacity because he understood that the Jihadi project run by Pakistan and its proxies in Kashmir is a business for both of them. In the same conversation he raises suspicion on the killing of many Jaish commanders in Kashmir saying that those who understood the tehreek in Kashmir get killed.  Mufti Waqas was killed in 2018. His audio conversation with Musa was released after two years, as is the norm with al Qaeda outfit. 

It is not a new thing that was said about the present “resistance” leadership. Most of the present political “resistance” leadership is rehashed one. They took part in elections under Indian constitution, took oath to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the Indian state. Syed Ali Geelani, a three time MLA was receiving pension until 2007 when it became a major issue on his credibility, his friend Ghulam Nabi Sumji, general secretary of the Hurriyat, still receives MLA pension despite calling boycott to elections, despite dishing out diatribe against elected members of the state assembly.

Now on June 29, Geelani resigns from his faction of the Hurriyat Conference. He puts up his resignation in two-page letter rather than on copious paper, as is his wont. Besides, a portion of letter was hushed up in Kashmir but one, which according to Indian journalist, Praveen Swami, his son-in-law (although he erroneously mentions him son), Zahoor Geelani, confirmed was also a part of it.   

Reading this letter gives an interesting insight to the mind and intellect of Geelani. I will restrict myself to these two letters.

A background check of Geelani

When the present armed tehreek started in the late 80s Syed Ali Geelani was a sitting MLA. It was fifth time he fought for state assembly elections, besides taking part in three Indian parliamentary elections as well. He was declared winner in 1987 assembly election that most Kashmiris consider were rigged. But he refused to resign in protest and continued to enjoy the perks of sitting MLA. As the insurgency against the Indian rule spread with militants threating to kill anyone who sides with India, Geelani resigned. After that with Pakistan pumping in Islamist Hizb-ul-Mujahedeen, armed wing of the Jamaat-i-Islami, to the Kashmir conflict the Hizb made sure that everyone in Kashmir should hear that Geelani is not only their leader but the leader of the tehreek. It shot Geelani to limelight. Otherwise it is hard to fathom that Geelani had any support outside Sopore. The ascendancy of the Hizb in Kashmir also marked the rise of Geelani. And not surprisingly both of them fell together.

Decimation of the Hizb and fall of Geelani

This year in June back-to-back encounters led to the killing of 15 militants of the Hizb. What was surprising in these killings that most of the militants had no, or little ammunition with them. If these militants belonged to al Qaeda affiliate Ansar Ghazwat ul Hind, or Islamic State affiliate in Kashmir it was understood, but militants of the Hizb not having ammunition is surprising. 

Surprising because the Hizb overtly fights for Pakistan, and decimated everyone in the 90s who stood in opposition of it. The Hizb got best of resources from Pakistan. The latter never stopped arms and ammunition, men to the Hizb. But since 2019, the killed commander Riyaz Naikoo was spilling the beans in his audio messages to his leadership based in Pakistan administered Kashmir that arms are being withheld from them. With India abrogating the last remains of Articles 370, and 35A, Hizb was unable to do anything other than issuing threating posters, and allegedly killing truck drivers, labourers coming from India.

With the coming of the Resistance Front, Pakistan showed its intention that the Hizb is no longer its favourite militant party. And as the main supporter of the Hurriyat and its militant affiliates Pakistan had genuine reasons for it.

In the audio conversation Jaish chief in Kashmir reveals to Zakir that arms (alluding to Pakistan) are withheld to the Hizb because most of them fear that its cadres would defect to the AGH. A valid observation. The AGH has emerged ideologically indispensable which Pakistan along with the Hurriyat and its militant affiliates, and pro-merger intellectuals were unable to curb ideologically or through coercive force. In the same audio Musa tells Mufti Waqas that some Hizb cadres would fire near their hideouts to rat on for the Indian forces. It was déjà vu of the 90s. But that time other militant organisations had no alternative with the Hizb getting lion’s share in the local media. This time social media has flattened the curve, and as such Hizb’s tactics were not working much to the annoyance of Pakistani handlers. The second worry for Pakistan would have been that the Research and Analysis Wing of India was nearly successful in planting its man in the upper echelons of the Hizb. If policeman Naveed Babu had not been arrested along with deputy superintendent of police, Devendra Singh, in a chance encounter, the former would have been in Pakistan administered Kashmir and directing the Hizb from there as per his handlers in India (https://www.news18.com/news/india/raw-used-rogue-police-officer-davinder-singh-in-operation-to-infiltrate-hizb-say-police-intel-sources-2470201.html)

Coming up of The Resistance Front

Among a plethora of reasons why The Resistance Front came up, one is the sword of FATF hanging on Pakistan. Second, religious militancy has hit back the Pakistani state badly with clamour of turning Pakistan into an Islamic state governed by Sharia laws.  Pakistan may have got impetus also because a section of vocal Kashmiris do not want Islamist organisation in their midst to lead them. It started paying tribute to militants of the Hizb by quoting a well-known gay poet Aga Shahid Ali. A gay poet’s poetry used to pay tributes to Islamist militants is sacrilege that the Hizb leadership had to gulp.

The RF’s ambitions are also restricted to domicile issues of Kashmir.

Geelani shooed away by Pakistan

The Pakistani state smartly discarded Geelani, first paralysing Hizb thus nipping any idea of revolt, then went after him. If the Indian state has no hesitation in discarding its compradors be it the Abdullahs, and Muftis, why should Pakistani state not do the same! States are not based on morals, emotions or empathy. Their interests are paramount on everything.

Pakistan may have been waiting that Geelani may die due to old age and as such provide a graceful exit to him, but he didn’t. The Pakistan intentions may have been conveyed to him that may be the reason why a video of Geelani incanting “Pak sarzameen” was released in the month of February to thwart attempts to remove him. It didn’t work (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBipuED_iEE).

So, Geelani did what most Kashmiris do when they are removed from any organisation. He accuses everyone of betraying him, indulging in loot, indiscipline, but absolves himself from any wrongdoing. Forgetting that for the past 16 years he was the kingpin under whom every noxious thing was done.

Absolving himself from the rot that is in the Hurriyat

Geelani in his letter takes moral high ground. He says because members of the Hurriyat Conference in Pakistan administered Kashmir “were after administrative post, hobnobbed with ministers, conspired against each other, some of them were involved in financial bungling’s” blah, blah, blah. Then he writes that his messages for the Kashmir nation emanating from Pak administered Kashmir were made suspicious. He says that even his last will in which he had expressly stated that his son would lead the funeral prayer, indicating his son taking over the leadership from him, was put under a cloud of doubt with an enquiry committee formed to check its veracity. 

He accuses his party members of not doing anything after the abrogation of Articles 370, and 35A! He accuses members, those who were not arrested, shunning their responsibility post the abrogation of Articles 370, 35A!  A blatant lie that his bosom friend, Mohammad Ashraf Sehrai, debunked in October 2019. Speaking to a group of journalists at his home, when “Pressed on why he had chosen silence, Sehrai said the initiative should have come from Geelani or the Mirwaiz as they had been issuing “protest calendars” all these years. He said he had had no contact with either and that when he had reached out to men close to them, there was ‘no response’.” (https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/kashmir-decoding-silence-of-the-hawks/cid/1718624).

Geelani accuses his party member’s of money laundering giving credence to vogue accusations levelled by the people of Kashmir on most Hurriyat leaders and activists. He further writes that ineptitude, corruption, unaccountability, in the ranks was covered for the “greater interest of the tehreek”! Do people like Qasim Faktoo, Masrat Alam, Shafi Shariti, Aasiya Andrabi, et al, also come in this list?

What does a common Kashmiri make of his corruption charges? For years Indian media, and a few journalists of Kashmir would tell us that the Hurriyat leaders have amassed huge properties on the blood of common Kashmiris in the name of this tehreek! That the Hurriyat organises protests in lieu of money, as its member Nayeem Khan confessed, in a sting operation is also known in many quarters. (https://www.news18.com/news/politics/hurriyat-suspends-nayeem-khan-after-he-admits-to-organising-unrest-in-kashmir-1407393.html) But, like everything, Hurriyat brushes them as an Indian propaganda.

As the head of the party the fault lies with him for allowing everything to happen. It is his failure, failure of leadership, failure of vision, that corruption allowed anywhere is not going to benefit any tehreek in any which way.

A part of the resignation letter that was hashed up, but authenticated by his son-in-law, is also revealing. The Hurriyat has not rebutted it. Here in this part he accuses his benefactor of turning the tehreek of Kashmir into their vested interests and carrying illegal drug trafficking in the name of the tehreek. 

If these words ring a bell in your minds, a militant called Qayoom Najar had raised questions of accountability on the Hurriyat in 2015, but then the same Geelani along with the Hizb went after him and branded him a government of India agent. A militant for 23 years, Najar was finally killed when a tip off came from Pakistan (https://kashmirdispatch.com/2018/01/10/militant-among-militants-life-and-times-of-qayoom-najar/150834/).

Zakir Musa, whom the same Geelani’s organisation was hell bent to prove him an agent working for the interests of India, has spoken regularly how Pakistan is using the Kashmir card for its own vested interests. Musa and his organisation have maintained that the Jihadi project of Pakistan is nothing but a business for it and its supporters in Kashmir.

Geelani’s failure in the early 2000s was masked because opposition voices were muzzled, or silenced forever by his militant followers. The coming up of social media busted the myth that Geelani is undisputed leader, it also made it difficult for Geelani and his ilk to hide their failures. 

Rather than gracefully stepping down, and realising that no one is indispensible Geelani tries to present himself as holier than thou person. The letter he circulated will prove a death kneel for his reputation.

For his die hard supporters Geelani’s resignation means purification process, for detractors it is surrender, and in between these extremes are the people who count one more leader falling when the state’s posture hardened.    

Not that Geelani, and Hizb would disappear. The Pakistani state would continue to use them like the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front. And it may not be a surprise if Syed Salahuddin takes over as a political representative of the Hurriyat Conference.