Many separatist groups have disowned Hurriyat. What does this mean for Kashmir’s politics?

Over the last few weeks, Union Home Minister Amit Shah announced that 12 groups in Kashmir had cut off ties with the Hurriyat Conference, an influential collective of separatist organisations in the Valley.

“It is a prominent demonstration of the people’s trust in the Constitution of India within the valley,” Shah wrote on social media platform X on April 8, while on a visit to the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

Eight of the outfits were named in his Twitter posts between March 25 and April 11 – JK Peoples Movement and JK Democratic Political Movement, JK Tahreeki Istiqlal and JK Tahreeki Istiqamat, JK Islamic Political Party, JK Muslim Democratic League and Kashmir Freedom Front and the JK Mass Movement.

Besides these, the wife of the leader of the Jammu and Kashmir Salvation Movement told reporters that the outfit was distancing itself from separatism. The names of the remaining three groups are not yet known.

Since 2019, the space for separatist politics has been nearly obliterated in Jammu and Kashmir. Soon after it scrapped Article 370 and unilaterally broke the erstwhile state into two union territories, the Narendra Modi government cracked down on several groups and imprisoned influential leaders.

According to Shah, the disavowal of the 12 groups was more proof of the continued weakening of the separatist sentiment in the Valley.

But political observers in Jammu and Kashmir are reluctant to read much into the development, as several of these groups are largely unknown and obscure, with little influence in the Valley. “Honestly, I wonder who these people are?” asked a retired academic of political science in Jammu and Kashmir, who declined to be identified.

Who are these groups?

The All Parties Hurriyat Conference is not a single party but a conglomerate of around 30 social, religious and political outfits. It came into existence on July 31, 1993, with the core belief that Jammu and Kashmir is a ‘disputed territory’.

Many of its constituents differed over whether they wanted independence or unification of Jammu and Kashmir with Pakistan. But all of them were united on a single agenda: the people of Jammu and Kashmir should be given the right to self-determination, according to the United Nations resolutions advocating for a plebiscite.

In the early 1990s, during the peak of militancy, the Hurriyat Conference emerged as the political face of the pro-freedom politics in Jammu and Kashmir. Its ideology harked back to the pro-plebiscite strain of Kashmir’s politics, which had been once represented by the Plebiscite Front and the Muslim United Front in the decades after 1947.

The top rung of the Hurriyat Conference’s leaders, such as Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Yasin Malik, had immense sway over the Valley’s politics. Calls for hartals or protests from these leaders would be enough to shut down the Valley for weeks.

In a tacit acknowledgement of the conglomerate’s support base in Jammu and Kashmir by New Delhi, a faction of Hurriyat led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq had engaged in a dialogue over Kashmir with Atal Bihari Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance government in 2004.

Significantly, none of the 12 organisations that have delinked from the Hurriyat were among its founding constituents. It is not even known when many of these groups were created.

Nor do the leaders of these groups enjoy the standing or clout that senior or even second-rung Hurriyat leaders once enjoyed.

Take the case of lawyer Mohammad Shafi Reshi, who is the chief of Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Political Movement. The group once allied with the faction of the Hurriyat led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani.

In his statement to the press, Reshi said he had “severed all ties with the Democratic Political Movement in 2017 during his tenure as chairman and has since maintained no association with these groups or any separatist organisation”. In August 2017, NIA had raided Reshi’s residence in a terror funding case.

The other familiar name among the leaders who have quit separatism is Zafar Akbar Bhat.

Currently in jail over terror funding allegations, Bhat headed a small organization known as Jammu and Kashmir Salvation Movement. His wife, Neelofer Akbar Bhat, publicly announced the group’s severing of ties with the Hurriyat.

Political observers argued that the decision of these groups to renounce separatism is not significant enough to write an obituary of separatist politics in Jammu and Kashmir. “None of the senior or prominent faces of Hurriyat has announced that they have shunned the politics of advocating for the resolution of the Kashmir dispute. If that happens, then it’s a big message,” said the retired political science academic.

Same language, no explanation

The groups have used strikingly similar methods and language to repudiate the Hurriyat. None of them have held a press conference or an interaction with the media to explain their changed stance. In their statements to the press, they have echoed each other, saying “…we strongly oppose the ideology of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, as it has failed to effectively address the aspirations and grievances of the people of Jammu and Kashmir”. They also claimed that they are “dedicated to upholding the Constitution of India”.

In at least one case, the Centre does not seem to be aware of the credentials of the outfits rejecting separatism. Take the case of the March 25 announcement by Home Minister Amit Shah via social media platform X.

In his first post, Shah named the Jammu and Kashmir People’s Movement and the Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Political Movement as the two outfits who had shunned separatism.

However, the Jammu and Kashmir People’s Movement was never a separatist organisation. It was a mainstream political outfit floated by Kashmiri bureaucrat-turned-politician Shah Faesal in 2019. The outfit ceased to exist after the Centre turned down Faesal’s resignation from services and rehabilitated him following his imprisonment during the August 5, 2019 crackdown in Jammu and Kashmir.

Not surprisingly, within minutes, Shah’s post was edited to remove the names.

End of separatism?

In the political landscape shaped by the decisions of August 5, 2019, the separatist sentiment in Jammu and Kashmir is on the backfoot.

Most of the separatist organisations have been banned and their members jailed.

While Mirwaiz and late Syed Ali Shah Geelani were placed under years of house arrest, Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front chairman Yasin Malik was arrested in April 2019 in a terror funding case.

In 2022, a special National Investigation Agency court in Delhi sentenced Malik to life imprisonment after convicting him of funding terrorism. In May 2023, NIA approached the Delhi High Court seeking death penalty for Malik.

Currently, the only prominent separatist face is Kashmir’s chief cleric Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, who also heads Hurriyat (M) faction of the conglomerate. Mirwaiz was released from house arrest in September 2023 after four years, but his movement remains restricted. He is often put under house arrest on Fridays when he is scheduled to address worshippers at Srinagar’s historic Jamia Masjid.

Since his release, Mirwaiz has tried to appear less as a separatist and more as a religious leader by raising pan-Muslim issues and attacks on minorities within mainland India.

Just two weeks before Shah’s March 25 announcement regarding the public disassociation of two outfits from separatism, the Centre banned Jammu and Kashmir Awami Action Committee, headed by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, and the Jammu and Kashmir Ittihadul Muslimeen, headed by Mohammad Abbas Ansari, for five years under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

The ban coincided with extensive raids and renewed crackdown on separatist leaders and activists by the police across Kashmir Valley. Many of these raids were in connection with cases dating back to pre-2019.

A scholar who has studied the separatist politics in Jammu and Kashmir pointed out a dual strategy by New Delhi.

“On one hand, it has invoked the UAPA to ban and criminalise certain hardline factions,” the scholar said. “On the other hand, it has offered moderate groups an opportunity to renounce separatism and participate in the democratic process. This reflects an effort to fragment the separatist movement, isolate radical voices, and co-opt reform-minded elements into the political mainstream.”

Other political observers pointed out that in a changed political scenario, ambitious individuals have been persuaded to switch sides. “If somebody has political ambitions, he will seek to come to the mainstream politics because that’s the only space available after 2019,” said Rekha Chowdhary, former professor of political science at University of Jammu.

The possibility of separatists joining the mainstream has been always present, Chowdhary said. “Since 2002, members of the Hurriyat have been shifting to mainstream politics. Sajad Lone is an example of that. It has been an ongoing process,” she pointed out.

Chowdhary also cited an example of the banned socio-religious organisation Jamaat-e-Islami Jammu and Kashmir, which had boycotted elections in Jammu and Kashmir since 1987.

During the last year’s assembly elections, several members of the banned organisation contested elections as independent candidates with the tacit approval of New Delhi. However, none of them could win a seat. “Its decision is a reflection that there is no other space than mainstream politics,” Chowdhary said.

‘Not a final obituary’

Some observers see a parallel between Shah’s announcement and the proclamations in the aftermath of the 1975 Indira-Abdullah accord.

“In 1975, when Sheikh Abdullah gave up his demand for right to self-determination in lieu of power, the government of India believed that the demand for right to self-determination in Jammu and Kashmir was over,” said the ex-political science professor. “But just within 14 years, we had a full-blown armed insurgency in Kashmir Valley.”

Therefore, the ex-professor said, it is difficult to declare the death of separatism in Kashmir. “Politically, it is quite nonsensical and unwise to write a final obituary of separatism in Kashmir. It’s not only about Hurriyat. The Kashmir issue has an external and international dimension as well. There are treaties between India and Pakistan on this,” he said.

New Delhi asserts that there is no Kashmir issue following the reading down of Article 370 and the region stands “integrated”, but that is not how people in Kashmir see it, he added. “The state is using its force and might. It doesn’t even listen to those political forces who contested elections,” the retired academic said. “I doubt if this strategy has efficacy in the long run.”

The weakening of separatism may not mean the grievances that fuelled this strain of politics have disappeared, other observers said.

“The sentiment that once led to Hurriyat formation has not disappeared,” said the scholar on Kashmir’s separatist politics. “It has largely gone underground.”

New Delhi hopes, the scholar said, that weakening the separatist platforms will also lead the “sentiment” to dissipate. “However, history and political psychology suggest that deeply rooted grievances, especially those tied to collective memory, identity, and historical injustice, rarely vanish,” the scholar said. “Rather, they mutate and re-emerge in new forms, often in less predictable or more radicalised ways.”

📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC

Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting