Politics Now

Thorn in the Rose: Tackling the Kashmiri Crisis

A young student involves in stone-pelting activities (REUTERS File photo)

Kashmir has for long been the prickly point of Indo-Pakistani relations. Both parties want the heavenly paradise of Kashmir; this has been the contentious issue for decades. Situations have only volleyed towards the worse- tumultuous relations and widening cracks being projected on the upfront by separatist activities. What is more concerning is the fact that Islami propaganda that features the demand of an Azad Kashmir is gaining momentum; it has clearly secured a vital traction with the youth masses. This is a perennial conflict, and no amount of international intervention can resolve the matter, at least for the next few decades to come.

Welcome to Kashmir 2.0, the Land of Revolution and Violence.

On July 8th, 2016, the “Che Guevara” of the Kashmir revolution- Burhan Wani- was shot dead by the Indian Armed Forces. Within minutes, social media was abuzz with the news of his death, spreading like wildfire in a forest of dry leaves. The youth of Kashmir seemed to overflow with emotions of contempt over such an action by the forces, and separatist parties called for an unparalleled showdown in the Valley. And since then, the revolution has taken a course of its own: Over the last couple of years, a lot has been said on the national media about Kashmir and its multifarious flaws. The mess is a precarious mix of frustration, coupled with a loss of identity and dishonour of the Kashmiri pride. The more one tries to play the escapist card, the deeper they fall in the trenches of an ever-broadening political conundrum.

As the April 2017 elections approached, separatist organisations, including the umbrella organisation, the All Party Hurriyat Conference, called for a unilateral boycott. This was nothing new, and on previous occasions, most Kashmiris ignored the instructions and turned out to the polls in substantial numbers. This time, however, even the capital city, Srinagar, saw a precipitous decline in voter turnout. A mere 7.14 percent of the eligible electorate turned up to the polls during the first week of April—the worst showing in three decades. Violence was so widespread in the other constituency, Anantnag, that one of the candidates asked the election commission to postpone the election until late May, which it did. As a part of the research work that precedes any article, I came across a quote from an IPS officer by the name of Sanjiv Bhatt:

Why is there such a furore, such an uprising? Why are the Kashmiri people incensed, and why are pseudo-nationalists digging so deep into matters they have only a superficial idea of? Is Kashmir a lost case, or is Kashmir the paradise that always belonged to India? While answers to all the questions are relative (as is everything in the world of political science), they are all inter-linked. The root of the conflict between the Kashmiri insurgents and the Indian Government is tied to a dispute over local autonomy. Politics Now will break down the labyrinthine situation in Kashmir for you to digest and understand.

Armed Forces and Human Rights

Protests that erupt periodically in Kashmir have often overwhelmed Indian police for decades. So much so, that the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)- a special unit designed to undertake counterterrorism operations- has to be involved in law enforcement duties. The involvement of the CRPF marks a definite failure of the Jammu and Kashmir Police to maintain adept law and order in the State, and more importantly, reflects a lack of will on part of the State leadership to provide necessary training to bring the State cadre to a base minimum level of institutional credibility. The CRPF is notorious for using crowd-control methods that are at best controversial, including pepper sprays, pellet guns, and even live ammunition.

International human rights groups have condemned such ruthless use of brute force on ordinary civilians on the mere basis of suspicion. Concrete evidence is not required in the valley to sanction the use of such force; ground situations vary and the magnitude of repressive measure deployed depends on the decision made there. These unorthodox weapons of crowd-control have caused serious injuries and have deprived hundreds of proper vision. Moreover, manufacturing standards themselves state that accuracy in such guns cannot be cent percent: in all, such blatant statements clearly give us an imprint of the number of casualties caused due to such misfired ammunition. Several litigations were filed in the State High Court to review the use of such non-powder ballistic guns. In a landmark ruling in mid-September, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court denied an explicit ban on the use of pellet guns, but made it clear that it must be employed only in “rarest of rare cases”. The trouble is, “rarest of rare” in Constitutional terms is ambiguous.

Many Kashmiri men have endured routine harassment, been subjected to degrading interrogation, and been detained without trial for indefinite periods of time – Sumit Ganguly, Foreign Affairs

Such incidents as stray bullets killing civilians are bound to have chain reaction effects. The ramifications are perilous: families of victims would perceive the death of civilians as an attempt by the Government to suppress their voices of dissent. Perhaps, they too wish and dream of a Kashmir wherein the State is just another part of the country. Perhaps, they too wish to serve in Government offices. Perhaps, they too have academic ambitions as high as any other societal cream would. However, their aspirations are crushed by the reality of the gory present- and hence the cycle of depression, destruction and death continues.

The Pakistani Factor

Islamabad’s glee is evidently visible as the violence in mainstream Kashmir worsens. Pakistan has always viewed Kashmir as a land to be annexed. Right after partition, it had sent in Pashtun tribesmen from the North-Western Frontier Provinces (NWFP) to destabilise the State under the then Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh. The last public attempt at annexing Kashmir was made back in late 1998. The Inter-Services Intelligence Agency was covertly training insurgent groups to infiltrate the LOC and cross over to Indian-Occupied Kashmir. As reports followed, Pakistan denied any involvement, but subsequent confirmations from operating chiefs and substantial evidence found from operatives captured alive showed direct involvement of the Pakistani establishment. On international pressure from diplomatic circles, Pakistan finally had to withdraw in mid-1999, and with that, the Kargil War was declared over.

However, the taste of humiliation has not gone down well enough for Pakistan- and it is burning to take a rightful revenge on its border rival, India. The problem with Pakistan is that it maintains an observable reluctance in prosecuting terrorists operating from its own soil. Of course, in politics, the word “terrorist” has no meaning- Masood Azhar to Pakistan is a hero, while in India we castigate and lambaste the person as a perpetrator of consequential attacks. Pakistan seeks Kashmir for more reasons than religious demographics- the control of water resources is a powerful option that it would like to keep in its hands.

Such covert support in fanning extremist propaganda to the other side of the border seems to be working well for Pakistan. Kashmir, already boiling with the domestic turmoil due to perceived oppression from the Armed Forces, has received a catalyst in the form of separatist leaders who have no other agenda but to spread their own prejudiced ideas. Let us all take a moment and speak the language the common man speaks: If all they want is azadi, why on earth are they staying here? A close look at the resume of the sons and daughters of these reveals the narrow-mindedness of their goal. Their families stay in safe havens across the globe. Hypocrisy gets a brand new definition when these people incite incensed Kashmiris to take up the gun against the State.

Hands tied up

The Kashmir dispute is nothing new, it has existed since the dawn of independence. As such, drastic actions cannot be quickly contemplated and enforced due to a stringent set of guidelines that govern the functioning of the State machinery in Jammu and Kashmir.

Upon independence, princely states within the Dominion of India had to voice their assent to be integrated into the Indian Union. To be a part of the Indian Union, the precondition was that the Indian Constitution had to adopted in the State over the Constitution of the Princely State. If Kashmir was yet another princely state in India, why did the Government enact the Article 370, which provided the State with incredulous amounts of autonomy? The answer lies in the history textbooks: On ascension to the Indian Union, Jammu and Kashmir refused to enact the Constitution of India. Such an obstinate move left New Delhi manoeuvring new tactics to keep the State integrated. Dr BR Ambedkar, the principal drafter of the Indian Constitution, had outrightly rejected such an attempt to assign Jammu and Kashmir a special status. However, the task was taken up by Gopalaswami Ayyangar, on the insistence of Nehru. It was meant to be a temporal measure, an act which would help facilitate the smooth transfer of the State from an autocracy to a democracy under New Delhi’s control.

Article 370, coupled with the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) that has for long been enforced in the State, make a draconian duo. While Article 370 restricts the Parliament from altering demographical characteristics and redrawing of border lines, AFSPA permits the army to have a free run in the State. The army can search and arrest any person without issuing a warrant and can open fire without major consequences. This deadly combination of repressive acts have for long been the source of discontentment in the State circles. However, the political brass defers any reference made and/or call to abdicate AFSPA from Kashmir, since it is a delicate issue and the Army would best know how to deal with it (or so do they believe).

The Way Forward

At present, the ground reality looks grim. I doubt how far such a strategy of repression might work out. The government has been staunch on its stand to use brute force in case of any objection to using of any of the aforementioned methods of combating terrorism by cross-border elements. However, I have always maintained that war cannot be ended with another war, and that is something that has been eternally true throughout all the years that have witnessed wars. The third world countries in the postmodern world cannot afford any such dramatic climax that leads to a standoff between two nuclear-capable countries. Before writing the article, I went through a treacherous number of videos posted by Kashmiri militants, in order to gauge the perspectives on both sides. The fact remains thus that the militants have increased, which is in keeping with the proportion of sentiments of avenging deaths of close ones. As an independent researcher, I have found facts contrary to what the national media airs: the police force has also crossed limits on a good number of occasions. Disappointment and public exasperation due to such instances of the police mercilessly beating up innocent civilians have also contributed largely to the spark in violence.

The government must, therefore, devise a different strategy. The primary step to advancement is to outlaw the Hurriyat. Till date, every government has tolerated the Hurriyat so as to show that India values the fundamental rights such as the freedom of expression and speech. However, these nefarious agents are the ones who are involved in anti-India activities. In one of my previous articles on illusory nationalism, I had regretted the fact that the volley of sedition cases being slapped indiscriminately was hardly justifiable- if calling for pelting stones at the Army to stop the government is not sedition, I do not know what the government considers as sedition. The Kashmir Valley is reeling from a brutal onslaught of terrorism and suspension of democratic logistics. Curfews have curbed all freedoms, and every person of Kashmiri origin has been compelled to shame and suspicion. The State also has to ensure that educational institutions are not affected as a part of Valley shutdowns- because closing the gates of such institutions would only exacerbate the situation for the worse. A week before the article was written, schools had shut down due to fear of clashes between the police and the civilians. Such acts would create doubts in the minds of children who would question the intentions of the State and would feel insecure being a part of India. Thus, places of educational interest must be kept open under any circumstances, a fact that the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has repeatedly argued for. Also, although difficult, constant efforts must be made to provide reasonable employment opportunities- a Directive Principle of the State policy- to all citizens residing within its territorial lines. Employment would reduce the problem of militancy as it would cut off active support bases from being harnessed again for illicit purposes.

I keep my fingers crossed in the hope that one day, high-running tensions of today would return to the normalcy of yore. Some day, Kashmir would be trouble-free, a heaven for tourists, an asset for India. Some day, when Kashmiris would no longer be discriminated upon and Kashmiri arts such as carpets and blankets would flourish again. I keep my fingers crossed, to realise Amir Khusrau’s words again, someday:

Agar firdaus bar roo-e zameen ast,
Hameen ast-o hameen ast-o hameen ast.

(If there is a paradise on earth,
It is this, it is this, it is this)

The Victimization of Muslims

One of the most puerile and nascent ways to inspect terrorist attacks is to place the absolute liability of the attack on the entirety of the Mohammedan populace that exists in the community. This worrying trend is now a reality and serves as a brilliant example of religion-based prejudices that still exist in the contemporary society. Ever since the onset of the second millennium, the world has witnessed a host of terror attacks. These attacks have not only annihilated thousands but also have decimated rationality with every dreadful blow.

It is perfectly natural to react outrageously to such strikes. The public perception is an important yardstick to gauge the severity of the attack, and the consequent penalty imposable. The 26/11 attacks were despicable, condemnable, and reviled by all human beings that live in this world. I, too, am a part of this bandwagon: and I will stand up against all forms of terrorism in the future. However, it is equally indispensable to note that popular opinion often bears appreciable resemblances to fickle-mindedness, subject to change with changing whims.

Terrorism is definitely not a post-modern concept, it existed for ages before that. It would also be wrong to categorize terrorism as a war between the Muslim and the Christian ideologue. A Jewish terrorist organization, Sicarii, was established in the first century AD to combat the Romans in the Middle East. This only iterates how terrorism is not a present-day dictionary term. Post the Second World War, terrorism started to be linked with violence to advance political demands. From the seventies, most of the uprisings and revolutions took place in the African landscape, dominated by theological states adopting Islam as its guiding light. Revolutions are chaotic and usher in instability more than anything else; and consequently gives birth to a plethora of other tangible problems. This, unfortunately, is how we know terrorism today: the bloodied face of Muslim fidayeen who devote their lives to a false promise of acceptance into heaven, a stable future, and a good remuneration.

As per the statistics revealed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, hate crimes against the Muslims have risen 67% from 154 in 2014 to 257 in 2015 in the United States alone. In the United Kingdom, activist group Tell MAMA reports that religion-based bias against the Muslims witnessed a surge capped at 326% over the course of just one year. It prognosticates ghastly situations after Britain formally declares a clause to exit from the European Union. If we are to look into the domestic situation, tensions are at an all-time high: a string of lynching and cow-vigilantism activities took its due toll on the fragile communal joints in India.

All of these hate crimes can effectively be summed up in one word: Islamophobia. While going through a CNN report during my research work, I found a line that appealed to me: and I shall not refrain myself from sharing it with you all. Daniel Burke, the regional editor of CNN, says:

Muslims live in fear that they will be attacked. Americans live in fear that Muslims will attack them.

How apt is the above line! Islamophobia is for real, and it breathes its life in every corner of the society. As a devout follower of any other religion, one may be inclined to shrug off these concerns. But taking that route would deem one similar to an escapist who eludes the reality. What if we were the innocent Muslims, and at the receiving end of unwarranted brickbats from the entire community? What if our children were dragged out of our homes and abused in front of us, and we were to watch helplessly? What if our wives and sisters were molested in the name of religious prejudice? What if our family members are murdered and all we could do is to watch these fleeting events in cold blood? That would be completely unacceptable, a direct contradiction and a gross violation of our fundamental human rights guaranteed not only by the State but also ratified by the United Nations Charter of Fundamental Rights.

FBI Statistics on Hate Crimes in the United States (2015).

If we cannot internally accept even the remotest thought of such attempts to demean us at an individual level, why do we reciprocate inherently such violent actions towards a minority group? As an enthusiast for all things Afghani, I consider myself fortunate to get hold of a book named “A Fort of Nine Towers“. This book is a revelation of the raw reality that exists: ordinary citizens like you and me trapped in the deluge of war. Incomprehensible, and often tough to believe, the actuality is strikingly difficult to acknowledge. Should it not be that these people be given a fair opportunity to prove themselves, instead of being judgemental and labeling the entire band of these people as traitors?

While the initial fury is justifiable by the tenets of human psychology, continued discriminatory actions are definitely not. As that apt remark by Burke explains, both parties involved in this strenuous relationship are at daggers drawn, which essentially means that fear prevails and there are no winners involved. As the economists forecast, the US and European states would move into a period where they lack sufficient youth population to sustain their behemoth economies. Most of these men and women, of whom many may be immigrants, are resourceful and best of all, in their prime. This would not only provide them employment opportunities, but all of them would act as individual catalysts to propel the res publica forward.

It is in peace that we find prosperity. It is my most humble appeal to my dear readers, to discard the religious card you may have. Think of the infantile children who undergo such a lot of awful hardships. Are these innocent Muslims, whoever they be, not a product of the Lord? I do not care whether I end up taking a note that may brand me as yet another “anti-national” in the eyes of a few jingoistic parties: for I believe these pertinent concerns must be addressed immediately.

As Tagore would plausibly quote,

Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
By narrow domestic walls…
Where the mind is led forward by thee
Into ever-widening thought and action
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.