The history of the Hurriyat Conference, its political aspirations, and the controversies that surround it have made the organization an enduring focal point in Kashmir’s tumultuous landscape. Formed in the early 1990s, the Hurriyat represents a coalition of pro-separatist parties and leaders in Jammu and Kashmir, whose mission centers on the self-determination of the Kashmiri people. The politics of the Hurriyat and its influence, while significant, is layered with complexities, external affiliations, and a divided public response. This article delves into the genesis of the Hurriyat, its objectives, and its standing in the present-day political climate of the region.
The Origins of the Hurriyat Conference
The All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) was established in 1993 as a political front by various separatist groups and organizations seeking to create a unified platform to articulate the aspirations of a significant portion of the Kashmiri population. Hurriyat, meaning “freedom” in Arabic, encapsulated the call for self-determination and autonomy in the valley, reflecting the long-standing demand for a plebiscite under UN resolutions passed after the first Indo-Pak conflict in 1947-48.
Hurriyat’s formation was a response to two parallel forces at play in Kashmir during the early 1990s. On one hand, there was increasing militarization in the valley and an insurgency that had drawn international attention to the Kashmir conflict. On the other hand, political forces within Jammu and Kashmir felt disenfranchised and sought a peaceful but strong representation for their views. Aimed at presenting a unified voice, the APHC brought together a diverse range of ideologies—from moderate political entities to more hardline separatist groups—all of which were united in their opposition to India’s control over the region.
Hurriyat’s Factions and Ideological Divergences
Although formed as a unified front, internal divisions within Hurriyat soon surfaced, particularly over the strategy to achieve its goals. In 2003, the group officially split into two factions: one led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani, representing the hardline stance, and the other by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, advocating for a more moderate approach.
The Geelani-led faction (Hurriyat-G) is steadfast in its position that the only acceptable solution for Kashmir is complete integration with Pakistan. It firmly rejects any negotiations with the Indian government unless Pakistan is involved as a third party. Geelani’s ideology is rooted in religious conservatism, and he has consistently maintained that the accession of Kashmir to Pakistan is not just a political decision but a religious obligation.
The Mirwaiz-led faction (Hurriyat-M), on the other hand, supports the idea of a trilateral dialogue between India, Pakistan, and Kashmiri representatives. While the faction does not outright reject the possibility of greater autonomy for Kashmir within the Indian Union, it maintains that the ultimate goal is the right to self-determination, with independence as one of the possible outcomes. Mirwaiz’s group is generally seen as more pragmatic and open to diplomatic engagement with New Delhi.
These divisions within Hurriyat have often weakened the platform’s bargaining position, both domestically and internationally, as they reflect the broader ideological divides within the Kashmiri separatist movement.
The Role of Pakistan and External Dynamics
Hurriyat’s relationship with Pakistan has been one of its defining features and a source of contention in Indo-Pak relations. Islamabad has long supported the Hurriyat, both politically and diplomatically, viewing the organization as a legitimate voice for the Kashmiri people. Pakistan’s stance has been consistent: any solution to the Kashmir conflict must involve the will of the Kashmiri people, with Hurriyat representing that will. Over the years, Hurriyat leaders have made frequent visits to Pakistan, meeting with officials and engaging in discussions over the future of Kashmir.
However, Hurriyat’s association with Pakistan has also been one of its greatest challenges. In India, the Hurriyat is often viewed through the lens of Pakistani patronage, with its leadership accused of being proxies for Islamabad’s interests rather than true representatives of the Kashmiri people. This perception has led to the Indian government taking a hard line against the organization, especially during moments of heightened Indo-Pak tensions. New Delhi’s stance was exemplified in 2015 when it canceled high-level talks with Pakistan after Islamabad insisted on meeting Hurriyat leaders in New Delhi, viewing them as an essential third party in any dialogue over Kashmir.
Do They Speak for the People?
One of the most debated aspects of the Hurriyat Conference is its claim to represent the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. While it undoubtedly commands significant influence and respect, particularly in the Valley, its support base has fluctuated over the years. Hurriyat’s call for boycotts during elections, for instance, has historically found resonance with a portion of the population, leading to low voter turnouts in some regions. However, in other instances, significant voter participation has indicated that not all Kashmiris are in alignment with the separatist cause.
The insurgency that erupted in the 1990s, which Hurriyat initially sought to represent, has also evolved. Today’s young protesters and militants are often disconnected from Hurriyat’s leadership, which they view as being out of touch with the current ground realities. The rise of new leaders, such as Burhan Wani, and the use of social media to mobilize youth have created a more decentralized and radicalized landscape of dissent in Kashmir, where Hurriyat’s older guard may no longer be the sole guiding force.
Hurriyat’s Diminished Role in Recent Years
Since 2019, Hurriyat’s influence has significantly waned, especially following India’s revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status under Article 370 of the Constitution. The reorganization of the state into two union territories, accompanied by increased militarization and the detention of numerous Hurriyat leaders, has further weakened the organization. Syed Ali Shah Geelani, once a towering figure in Kashmir’s separatist movement, passed away in 2021, marking the end of an era for Hurriyat’s hardline faction.
Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, too, has faced restrictions and house arrest, limiting his ability to operate. The Indian government’s crackdown on separatist movements and tighter control over the Valley has drastically reduced Hurriyat’s ability to mobilize people and influence the political narrative.
Conclusion: A Relevance in Question?
The Hurriyat Conference, once a major political force in the Kashmir Valley, now faces an uncertain future. Its internal divisions, coupled with the evolving dynamics of the Kashmir conflict, have reduced its relevance in the face of newer and more radicalized forms of dissent. While it may still hold symbolic value for some segments of the population, particularly in advocating for Kashmir’s self-determination, its ability to affect meaningful change or act as a viable political representative has diminished in recent years.
The Hurriyat’s story is deeply intertwined with the larger narrative of the Kashmir conflict—an ongoing saga marked by political struggles, shifting alliances, and the evolving aspirations of the Kashmiri people. Whether it can adapt to the changing realities of the region remains to be seen, but its legacy as a key player in Kashmir’s separatist politics is undeniable. “Once Upon a Hurriyat” may now evoke a story of a movement past its peak, but its imprint on the Kashmir conflict will endure.
