Syed Ali Geelani, the leader of a hardline faction in India’s Kashmiri separatist movement, today condemned the Taliban militants in neighboring Pakistan. Citing in particular Thursday’s bombings, Geelani said the attacks “are forbidden in Islam as innocents are killed.”
Geelani suggested that the “Taliban leadership needs to give up violence and adopt peaceful means to get their demands addressed,” warning that innocent casualties cannot be tolerated.
Geelani’s status as a high profile member of the Kashmiri separatist movement puts him in a unique position with Pakistan’s more conservative and Islamist factions, upon which the Taliban groups rely for support. However his reluctance to publicly condemn terrorist attacks in Kashmir leaves his decision to publicly castigate the Taliban somewhat perplexing.
"Geelani’s status as a high profile member of the Kashmiri separatist movement puts him in a unique position with Pakistan’s more conservative and Islamist factions, upon which the Taliban groups rely for support."
Geelani seems to be caught in the same dilemma that Dr. Martin Luther King was between his 1967 Riverside Church speech "Beyond Vietnam — A Time to Break Silence" and his assassination exactly one year later.
The dilemma is how a religious and non-violence oriented leader confronts a violent empire which uses violence to control a people through fear.
While the Taliban certainly represent a questionable non-state actor in any revolutionary cause, the Pakistani government represents a less traditional 'non-state actor' in the person of the U.S. headquartered 'corporate financial Empire' pushing violence for its own selfish and deceptive benefits — regardless of the negative externality costs (death) to many ordinary Pakistanis.
Geelani's outcome by rocking the boat between these two non-state actors could well be the same as King's — if the Taliban don't get him first
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine