The possible split in the APHC following Geelani’s likely exit dominated the Urdu press in Kashmir Valley

“Hurriyat on the brink of disintegration” reported the daily Uqab (02 July 2003) in its lead news. “A few top Hurriyat leaders including chairman, Bhat, postponed their visit to Delhi to participate in Ram Jethmalani’s Kashmir Committee meeting, following the apprehension that in their absence Sayeed Ali Shah Geelani, a senior leader of APHC would announce a new party of his own. In a written statement from the Hurrriyat headquarters, the party termed baseless the report of a local newspaper, stating that the party had failed to convince Geelani .  The organization described as Geelani very much a part of the Hurriyat.”

It continued “there was a meeting at Geelani’s residence on the very day Hurriyat leaders had to fly to Delhi. They had every apprehension that on that very day Geelani would launch his own party. Though Geelani is not getting the required support, efforts are on in this regard. Geelani is demanding an explanation from the Hurriyat as to why action was not taken against the People’s Conference (a constituent of APHC) for its indirect involvement in the previous elections.”

In a related news item the Srinagar Times (05 July 2003) reported the likely exit of Geelani and the formation of a new party. “Geelani is not happy with the performance of the Hurriyat. The leader accused the organization of lackadaisical approach vis-à-vis the Kashmir issue, besides demanding explanation from it as to why action was not taken against the Peoples Conference (a constituent party of APHC) for its indirect involvement in previous elections.” 

The daily in a cartoon showed Prof. Bhat, chairman of the Hurriyat riding a bicycle without the front wheel, the detached front wheel being portrayed as Geelani.

The Srinagar Times (06 July 2003) in its editorial “Hurriyat, Jamat and Mr.Geelani” analysed the likely exit of Geelani from APHC following a controversy on the action yet to be taken against People’s Conference for its indirect involvement in previous elections, “though Geelani would reconsider APHC only if the latter takes action against People’s Conference for its indirect involvement in elections. But it seems that Geelani has already waved goodbye to the Hurriyat and has plans to launch a new party consisting of different separatist groups. On the other hand, the silence maintained by the Hurriyat in response to Geelani’s demand is an indication that the party has almost dismissed Geelani’s demand.” It referred to Geelani’s speech in Sopore in which he accused Hurrriyat of being impractical vis-à-vis the Kashmir issue. He also alleged that the organization had not given final shape to the election boycott campaign.

Slightly shifting from the focus, the edit piece analyzed Geelani as a politician in jail. “During elections, Geelani was in jail and did not give the boycott call from within. Walls of jails definitely confine a person but cannot muzzle his voice and a voice raised in jail is much more influential than the same voice in the open. Geelani claims that Jamati-i- Isalmi is the biggest constituent of Hurriyat and has given much more sacrifices than any other constituent party. It can be asked why Jamat failed to play its role in making election boycott a success.”

Geelani has one more grievance. During his detention, Hurrriyat leaders held negotiations with the Kashmir Committee headed by Jethmalani. He states that the Hurriyat by doing so has violated party fundamentals. It is believed that the Hurriyat is rendered lonely with the Jamat’s exit. Does this mean that the political force behind the ‘freedom struggle’ is going to be defunct, asked the editorial.

The bilingual Alsafa (03-July-2003) in its lead news reported the Hurriyat leaders’ failure to convince Geelani. “Leaders of APHC failed to persuade Geelani to not address a public gathering at Sopore, Geelani’s native place. According to reliable sources, Omar Farooq, Abbas Ansari, Yaseen Malik in an attempt to persuade Geelani met him at his residence. But Geelani rejected their proposal and addressed a massive gathering.”

It continued “Geelani demands explanation from the Hurriyat on the argument that if Shabir Shah, chairman of the Democratic Freedom Party was thrown out of Hurriyat for a minor mistake why was action not taken against the People’s Conference. Geelani made it clear that he has no grudges with any person or party but if any party violates the APHC principles, it should be punished like Shabir Shah.”

The Alsafa in its editorial (07 July 2003) wrote about the overwhelming response Geelani received in Sopore “tens of thousands of people dominated by youths desperately waiting for Geelani to arrive in Sopore gave a warm welcome to leader.” People chanted slogans of independence, unity, peace and hailed Geelani.

In an enthusiastic speech, Geelani criticized the Hurriyat Conference for having not given a final shape to the election boycott call saying, “though the APHC gave an open ‘election boycott call’ the organization internally encouraged elections which is evident from the fact that members of People’s Conference are part of the coalition government. The organization fell prey to conspirators and enjoyed trips outside which inflicted a great damage to ongoing freedom struggle. Geelani praised those who did not cast their vote.

We are near our destination and the world will very soon come to know that India is suppressing the voice of Kashmiris. Around one lakh have been martyred and people won’t let sacrifices go unrewarded. Mufti’s healing touch is a deception in itself. America is trying to mislead Muslims and enforce its rule, summed up the editorial.