A transition from rhetoric to realism

Shutdowns, processions, sit-ins, slogans, speeches, secessionist songs etc everything one could witness post 89 had actually happened between 1953 and 1975. It would not be inappropriate to say that whatever Hurriyat, except for militant outfits, did till 2008 was just a replay of PF movement.
Riyaz Masroor
Many years ago, a Kashmiri lawyer had to cut a sorry figure in a European capital where he was invited to speak on the human rights situation of J&K. It was fashionable those days to speak in ‘thousands’ and ‘lakhs’. Separatist leaders would say ‘thousands have been martyred’ without quoting figures. The lawyer followed suit and thus spoke to the learned audience: “Thousands have disappeared in Kashmir, most of them while in custody.” The participants were moved by the word ‘thousands’. At the end of the session, an HR activist approached the speaker with the request: “It’s really a grave issue, can you cite three examples so that I study the whole thing.” The lawyer, as per his own admission, had no handy references so he chose to avoid the query till next morning and forwarded three examples only after seeking them via phone from Kashmir. The lawyer returned home with his lifetime lesson: Shun rhetoric, gather realities. No wonder, the same lawyer is now Kashmir’s leading human rights defender.
In June 2008, when the Kashmiri separatists started the epic campaign against a government decision to transfer around 100 acres of land to a Hindu Shrine Board, Hurriyat Conference was reborn. Not just in the sense that it revived its lost contact with masses but in the sense that it started speaking on real issues harming Kashmiri interests. The campaign forced the government to revoke the order and the land title was restored. Bar Association and Hurriyat celebrated the revocation of order as a ‘victory for Kashmiris’. It was for the first time since 1989 that Hurriyat had opposed any government order , got it revoked through peaceful campaign and later celebrated the ‘victory’. And yes, the peaceful method cast moral isolation upon the authorities who would lob tear-smoke shells on unarmed civilians.
But for that unfortunate economic blocked forced on Kashmiris from Jammu, this small victory would have served a long way in reorganizing Kashmir’s rights movement into an orderly resistance. Nonetheless, 2008 marked a significant transition; the transition from violence to reconstruction, from rhetoric to creativity. In all these years, when had Geelani said India earns Rs 36000 Crores annually from Kashmir through taxes and food imports? When had Mirwaiz wondered over absence of water and power in rural Kashmir saying people pay taxes against no amenity? When had we experienced a different Geelani who wants to substantiate his claims of Indian occupation through figures? A Hurriyat (G) pamphlet, whose authenticity may be debatable, records the volume of land occupied by Indian army in different districts, it says more than 350,000 acres of land has been grabbed.
The issues which in yesteryears were a plain no-no for Hurriyat leaders have suddenly come alive for them. They are reacting to government decisions and processes – a decade ago such reactions were considered taboo. Hurriyat (all shades including JKLF) is increasingly becoming democratic in its conduct and response to the socio-political issues. For example, never had Hurriyat asked people to participate in a process directly controlled by New Delhi. In 2001, they called for outright boycott of census but are now urging people to stand up and be counted, though with a word of caution. It is definitely a welcome transition. By simply shutting our eyes whole world will not turn black.
It would be foolhardy to say that post 2008, Kashmiris began to hate militant violence as a means of resistance; they cannot unless the means of repression remain intact. But we cannot overlook the fact that the culture of peaceful and democratic resistance has taken root after 2008 uprising.
Many would agree that the post-89 resistance against Indian rule in J&K was clearly modeled after the legendary Tehreek Mahaz Rai Shumari (Plebiscite Front Movement). Whole architecture of Hurriyat politics could easily be gleaned from the 22-year PF movement that was spearheaded by many big names but actually inspired by then popular leader Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah, who remained in jail for most of those two decades. Shutdowns, processions, sit-ins, slogans, speeches, secessionist songs etc everything one could witness post 89 had actually happened between 1953 and 1975. It would not be inappropriate to say that whatever Hurriyat, except for militant outfits, did till 2008 was just a replay of PF movement. Isn’t it a fact that while Sheikh would bask in the glory of rising popularity his detractor and then Prime Minister of J&K, Bakhshi Ghulam Muhammad was eroding the autonomous status of the state? For that matter, PF movement too was an abstract activity that kept people aloof from what was happening around them. Interestingly, if in past Sheikh’s PF movement had got consumed into rhetoric, now Hurriyat is trying to remodel itself over realities rather than rhetoric. The heightened alertness about census and the new recruitment law is a glaring proof of that. If Hurriyat has abandoned the ‘secondhand ideas’ and chosen to embark a new route of democracy and peace, shouldn’t one welcome it as a positive transition?
Mian Abdul Qayoom, President of Kashmir Bar Association, could not understand the nuances of this argument when this writer spoke to a seminar titled “Census and reservation bill – a bid to darken our future” organized by Geelani-led Hurriyat Conference on 22 May 2010. “I completely disagree,” he said and employed all his acumen to disprove the transition highlighted by this writer. Ironically, the lawyer who on his return from Europe had admitted a flaw and got down to work only to create a huge bank of realities was present in the seminar. It would, perhaps, take another session to make Mr. Qayoom understand that the transition does not necessarily mean from bad to good, it is also from good to better. Is there any harm in admitting that things have changed? Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky provides the answer: “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.”
Feedback: riyaz.masroor@yahoo.com