Syed Ali Geelani admitted that funds were not used properly in the separatist camp. He is unhappy and disappointed by his aides who didn’t live up to his expectations. Javaid Trali wan
On 28th June, a letter written in chaste Urdu went viral on social media. It was shocking and surprising for many, but expected for others. Geelani had announced his disassociation with All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC). But the reasons put forth for the decision have only added to the confusion, for it has raised many more questions than answering any.
The major take away however, as per Geelani’s own admission is that it has validated a charge that the Government of India had against the Kashmiri separatists – about involvement of money and its illegal transactions and transport for running the politics of separatism in Jammu and Kashmir.
Besides other reasons, by eluding to what he described as “misappropriation of funds” (money) in his two-page letter to the constituents of APHC-G, Geelani seems to have openly endorsed the Indian allegation into a matter of fact besides suggesting that the movement for separatism was losing steam in the new scheme of things post the abrogation of Article 370 leading to his disappointment as a life-long leader of the movement.
Historically, it was Geelani who had helped put together the separatist amalgam APHC with four other colleagues in 1993. But few years later, he was the one to engineer a vertical split in the parent body to carve out his own faction by the same name. Later on, he was appointed as the life-time chairman of this Hurriyat faction (APHC-G) – a commitment he denounced as suddenly as if to demonstrate, yet again, the recklessness that has marked his political choices throughout his career.
Geelani’s tenure in separatist hierarchy is known for his singular obsession — Kashmir’s merger with Pakistan. “Kashmir Banega Pakistan” (Kashmir becoming Pakistan) was the idea of “Geelani Wali Azaadi” (Geelani’s version of freedom). He pumped these slogans and also used religion and selectively interpreted texts and Iqbal’s poetry in his mythmaking project to describe his own and that of his supporters’ politics as a “religious war”.
He also borrowed and used religious symbols, creeds and rituals, even though he did not mean that foot-soldiers recite ‘Takbeer’ (Allah is Great) while they slit the throats of, or pump bullets into the political adversaries after labelling them as “police informers” or “anti-movement”.
‘More loyal than the King’ as the saying goes, Geelani would at times even dictate terms to the governments in Pakistan. Such was his rapport in the Pakistan deep state that he could even afford an open confrontation with former Pakistan dictator General Parvez Musharraf by opposing his four-point formula on Kashmir, and yet remain at the helm in that country’s “Kashmir project”.
But today, the same Pakistan seems to be the cause of heart-ache for Geelani. Obviously not happy with Kashmiri separatists for their meaningful quiet in the face of the most disquieting of circumstances thrown up by the abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status under Article 370 and its downgrade into two centrally-administered territories, Pakistan seems no longer interested in supporting Geelani. For the new arrangements to take shape, the old structures have to be challenged and replaced. The “brewing rebellion” within the ranks of APHC in both parts of Kashmir across the LoC which Geelani is talking about, is actually part of this law of natural selection. Age too, after all, is no longer on Geelani’s side now.
The coming days will clarify many more things, and speculate on something that is yet to lay bare on the emerging needs of the present and unfolding future. Moreover, this is an area of friction between Geelani and his former-colleagues-turned-
But what is there in the popular conscience is people’s urge to hear from Geelani as to what he thinks is the net achievement of his brand of politics for Kashmir and for its people. How has he, and his political beliefs and actions, returned the favors that the people of Kashmir had accorded him by accepting him as the “uncontested leader of the movement” and heeding his, at times even the most unreasonable of calls, and putting up with the most obnoxious of behaviors like hitting at the very roots of separatist unity every now and then, or slamming the doors of his home shut on the visiting Indian Parliamentary delegation during the height of 2016 summer unrest, and thus wasting away whatever little support, sympathy or goodwill Kashmir and its culture had left in mainland India.
Geelani would also have to explain his obsession with calling for protest shutdowns at the slightest of pretexts and then also justifying the use of violence by the protagonists to enforce them. His penchant for issuing weekly protest calendars during regular bouts of summer agitations in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2016 without heeding any voices of reason and logic against this self-afflicting behavior has c
He must also talk about his going over-board in enthusiasm and announcing to a probably few thousands strong crowd during 2010 agitation that he was the sole proprietor of the “movement” , a statement he later retracted by quoting that “Sabghat-e-Lisani” (tongue taking precedence over thoughts) cliché.
Geelani has every right to vent out his frustrations at the things not going his way in Pakistan or here, because certain people in his own sphere of influence are not behaving the way he wants them to behave. Same argument could be extended to motivate him to speak up on his own behavioral shortcomings and political follies which have made sure that things do not go Kashmiri people’s way either.
One of the important rules of ethics of means and ends is that “the morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.” It is no rocket science to understand that he has been defeated on multiple fronts. Now, with no option left, he has decided to cool his heels.
‘Misguided morality’ is a grave affliction. Winston Churchill, a leading anti-communist, attracted this label upon siding with the communists when informed about Nazis invasion of the Soviet Union.
A great orator he was, if Churchill had the cheek to think and say the unthinkable, he also had the courage to own up his words and deeds, and explain even the worst of his political inconsistencies. Asked how he would reconcile being on the same side as Soviets; and if he wouldn’t find it difficult to ask his government to support the communists, Churchill’s reply was clear and straight: “Not at all. I have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby. If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least favorable reference to the Devil in the house of commons.”
History, it must be remembered, is made up of moral judgments made on politics — of the nations, as well as of its leaders, and the common people too. Churchill is known not only for what he did but also what he said; so are all other characters in the histories of nations and communities.
Will Geelani take a clue from Churchill’s life and try and do some plain talking to explain how and why he arrived at the decisions and choices he made for his individual self, his family and the common people of Kashmir. And how have these choices impacted each of these three target groups? How has his leadership fared in the light of his choices and on what note does he seem to have lost in the game of influence today?
Views are personal!
