Kashmir: Opportunity in Geelani’s exit

Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s recent resignation from the Hurriyat Conference faction he led since 2003 is an important development in Kashmiri separatist politics. While it is likely that his advanced age and failing health might have played a role in his decision to step down, his resignation letter throws light on the political opportunism and dirty politics that has always defined Kashmiri separatist politics. In the letter, Geelani, a hardline Islamist and hawkish separatist, has accused Pakistan-based separatists of nepotism and corruption, of misinterpreting his speeches and taking decisions without consulting him. He has also criticised the Valley-based separatists for failing to mobilise over New Delhi’s decision of August 5, 2019 to revoke Kashmir’s autonomy. Although Geelani has not mentioned the Pakistan government itself in his letter, his ire with Pakistan is evident. After all, Kashmiri separatists, in general, and the POK-based separatists, in particular, have functioned more or less like agents of the Pakistani State. They would not have kept Geelani out of the loop on decisions, as he alleges, without the consent of ISI, Pakistan’s notorious spy agency. It does seem that Geelani is upset with Pakistani attempts to marginalise him, and he has hit back. This is significant as Geelani has been the standard-bearer of pro-Pakistan politics in Kashmir for decades.

Geelani’s exit has implications for separatist politics. It is a setback for Kashmiri separatism as there are few leaders in separatist circles who can match his stature. On the other hand, his exit could pave the way for the rise of younger, more hawkish pro-Pakistan separatists, like Masarat Alam, who are already popular among radicalised Kashmiri youth. Should these younger separatists take charge, it would take the separatist movement towards an even more confrontationist path vis-à-vis India.

Will Kashmiri politics turn more conciliatory or confrontationist in the coming months? The Narendra Modi government has marginalised the other well-known but more moderate Hurriyat faces, such as Mirwaiz Umar Farooq. Over the past decade, they allowed stone-pelting and hartals orchestrated by Geelani and Alam to become Kashmir’s standard response to New Delhi. Can they now find a role and a path to dialogue with Delhi? To do so credibly, they will need to air the grievances of Kashmiris, not the interests of Islamabad. Opportunity has opened up for Delhi, too. It must reach out to all shades of political opinion in Kashmir, including the separatists. Geelani was a major obstacle in the way of separatists engaging in dialogue with Delhi so far. With his exit, the road to dialogue and a new Kashmiri politics has opened up.