The inordinately high voting in the panchayat elections in the Kashmir Valley once again tells us what every Kashmiri knows — that the writ of the Valley’s political extremists doesn’t run very much outside the municipal wards they live in. This time pro-Pakistan hardliner Syed Ali Shah Geelani called on people

not to participate in the polls, either as candidates or voters. No one bothered. It’s perhaps true, though, that there might be some issues — such as social or quasi-religious questions — where the Tehrik-e-Hurriyat chief can elicit compliance. In fact, about a year ago he even succeeded in insinuating himself into a situation where he became the inspiration for the stone-pelting mobs of unemployed, disgruntled youth. It’s all the more revealing then that the man who until some months back was dictating protest calendars across the Valley, week after week, should find himself so utterly disregarded.
It is possible that due to their fervour, even senior Kashmiri figures like Mr Geelani — who relied almost entirely on Pakistani munificence to further their cause — tended to miss the cues of history. While Mr Geelani’s cause is Kashmir’s integration with Pakistan, this is not uniformly the case with other separatists. On the other hand, the 1990s’ uprising helped ordinary Kashmiris understand that Pakistan was merely fighting its own battle to the last Kashmiri — that they were being used. It was this acute disenchantment that led to high voter turnouts in the panchayat election a decade ago. The separatists were severely embarrassed by this, and by the uncomfortable reality that people by and large did not want severance from India. The highest percentage (around 75) polled in the panchayat election 10 years ago was in Uri in northern Kashmir, on the Line of Control. The usual explanation in the separatist camp was that people there were not ethnic Kashmiris, but tribals and nomads. This time, the voting in Uri shot up to 87 per cent, and in places across north Kashmir it rose to approximately the Uri level of the last election despite some menace in the air. A woman candidate was killed in Budgam just before polling day, and this did act as a dampener. But all things considered, the progressive decline in the separatists’ influence is self-evident.
Most separatist groups played it safe, unlike Mr Geelani, who campaigned for an outright poll boycott. No doubt all of them will now seek to trot out implausible explanations. Some might even seize on a minor event to run a campaign in order to distract attention from the broad political trend. But they should be wiser. The outburst of anger among ordinary people in Srinagar when moderate Ahle-Hadees preacher Moulvi Showkat Shah was recently assassinated offers some lessons. Mr Shah was opposed to violence, he was a critic of the stone-pelting movement, and his political approach was different from Mr Geelani’s. The sympathy his death aroused must have given many separatists pause, though it is too much to expect that they will change overnight. The high polling that has been seen, and the sentiments aroused by Mr Shah’s brutal killing, are parts of the same tale. The government too should learn — offer young people in rural and semi-urban areas help to find a livelihood, and work diligently to develop social and physical infrastructure.