In the intense blame game that has
followed the failure of the previous
summer’s political unrest, Valley has
witnessed a conspicuous deepening
of division between moderate and
hardline separatists. The period has
spawned a discourse that blames
the Hurriyat (G) of messing up a
spontaneous popular groundswell
by trying to artificially extend it
through shutdown calendars. It also
accuses the faction of trying to
manipulate a natural outpouring of
public sentiment to suit its political
agenda. In fact, Hurriyat (G) is being
blamed for not only messing up
2010 uprising but all the three of
them since 2008 by obsessively
trying to project itself rather than
simply letting the overwhelming
sentiment on the ground play itself
out.
In recent weeks, this discourse has
graduated to a new and more daring
level. Hurriyat (G) chief Syed Ali Shah
Geelani is accused of responding to
only the human rights violations
perceived to have been committed
by the security forces. This is why
when the two sisters were recently
killed in Sopore by the unidentified
gunmen, Geelani suddenly became
the centre of attention. All that a
section of moderates seemed to be
interested in was how Geelani would
respond to the tragedy. A leader
who had spearheaded a Valleywide
ferment against the alleged rape and
murder of the two women in
Shopian was expected to rise up to
the occasion and lead a similar
campaign against the killings in
Sopore. And in the process, nobody
noticed that the state’s major
mainstream party PDP didn’t as
much as issue a customary
condemnation statement about the
incident.
Geelani, on the other hand, did slam
the sisters’ killing in the strongest
words possible and even sent a
Hurriyat delegation to Sopore to
offer condolences to the family. He
even called for a Sopore shutdown
against the killings which was
faithfully observed in the town. But
this was not deemed enough.
Geelani was expected to do more.
For example, to call for a Valleywide
hartal, in fact a series of them, and
also lead a protest campaign
demanding the identity of the
gunmen and their punishment like
he did in case of Shopian. This
discourse was still on when the army
killed a youth in Handwara while
sneaking across to another village in
the night to meet his beloved. Army
said the youth was killed by mistake
in the course of an ambush laid out
for the militants. But this in no way
justified the killing of an innocent
youth and the torture marks on his
body. The youth’s killing, however,
seemed to bring on par the excesses
by the security forces and the
unidentified gunmen and in the
process – albeit cynically – absolving
the both of their sins.
However, what was curious, was the
way many moderates looked to
Geelani for the response and tried to
turn it into a test of sorts for his
brand of politics. It was said that he
went whole hog over Shopian and
now let him go the distance on
Sopore. He shut Valley down for five
months last year over daily killings
of innocent youth, now he should
also announce a series of them over
Sopore. And both Geelani’s refusal to
measure up to these expectations or
even meeting them halfway is held
against him.
The objective here is not to defend
Geelani against these accusations.
Some of these might actually be
echoing the shades of public
sentiment in Kashmir. But it is to
reveal the lingering and now
growing tendency among some
moderates to scapegoat Geelani for
the general failure of the three
consecutive separatist uprisings
since 2008 and get away with it.
The point is how could they absolve
themselves by directing criticism at
Geelani. And the pertinent and much
larger question: why Geelani despite
all his blunders continues to be a
leader with mass following and
enjoy political credibility while the
moderates despite all their unilateral
claims to moral high ground and
possession of the knowledge of the
best possible strategy miserably
struggle to establish their political
bonafides. What is it that makes
Geelani important, gets him mass
support and also monopolize
separatist politics. And what is it that
denies the carping moderates the
confidence of the people.
Or to put it more bluntly if Geelani
baulked at issuing a protest
programme over Sopore, what
stopped the moderates from giving
one themselves. Or leave Sopore
alone - it was anyway a tough call –
why they couldn’t make an issue out
of the youth’s killing in Handwara. Or
if they thought Geelani was hijacking
the 2010 unrest what stopped them
from stepping in and nudge it back
in the right direction. And not being
able to do so reveals a deep crisis
among the moderates: a continuing
inability to establish their credibility
and at the same a degree of
diffidence to prosecute a political
campaign or take a moral stand.
Instead, they have tried to play on
the slip-ups of Geelani. Some of them
completely define themselves
through Geelani’s politics. What we
have as a result is a separatist
narrative that is uni-dimensional
and entirely Geelani-driven.
Moderates are not only not part of
the political discourse but have also
lost the capacity to drive an agenda.
This is why, next time they think
Geelani messed up an agitation, they
have no one but themselves to
blame.
No comments:
Post a Comment