Arjimand Hussain Talib
In a tussle for justice, when a stronger party controls almost all the options of the weaker party, the outcome is inevitably cynical.
“The Little” Brown Book of Anecdotes, edited by Clifton Fadiman (1985), has an interesting story about Basmarck - a former German Chancellor and a German liberal politician. It is said that Basmarck, enraged at the constant criticism from Rudolf Virchow (a German liberal politician), had his aides call upon the scientist to challenge him to a duel.
“As the challenged party, I have the choice of weapons”, said Virchow, “and I choose these.” He held aloft two large and apparently identical sausages. “One of these,” he went on “is infected with deadly germs; the other is perfectly sound. Let His Excellency decide which one he wishes to eat, and I will eat the other.” Almost immediately, the message came back that the Chancellor had decided to cancel the duel!
Today, all the options before the people of Kashmir seem to be perfectly controlled. So, it is quite hard for them to make a choice – a choice which could ensure justice with the blood of young boys and girls who chose to die than live a life of suffocation and humiliation. Sadly enough, some of the Kashmiris’ long-held beliefs – which look like their fallacies today - stand shattered too.
The outcome of the All-Parties Meeting held in New Delhi last week has disappointed the people in Kashmir beyond words. The message conveyed by the meeting is being interpreted by Kashmiris this way: no matter the nature and the means of Kashmiri quest for regaining their political sovereignty, New Delhi controls and chooses all their options. And a harsh way.
Shockingly, the meeting doesn’t seem to have considered any political and humane approaches to the political message Kashmiris are conveying through the street protests. The harsher military crackdown unleashed on the peaceful Kashmiri movement since then seems to rubbish the Kashmiri ‘fallacies.’
Fallacy number 1: Kashmiri people had long internalized a ‘realization’ that a transformation of their militant movement to a peaceful political one would gain them friends and political achievement.
Kashmiris’ embrace of an armed movement in the late 80s saw a strong military response from New Delhi. That response hardly raised any eye brows within India and abroad. Kashmiris got isolated, and even demonized, than ever before. There were hardly any supporters to their cause. The loss they suffered was colossal. Their political goal looked even more distant. In the process, New Delhi managed to consolidate its political, military and cultural control of Kashmir even further.
That period also made Kashmir’s civil society be at a loss of words. They were easily defeated in discussions and conferences. India’s civil society sometimes promised support if only Kashmiris abjured the gun. The JKLF example is well known. It shunned the armed path on the promise from some of India’s prominent civil society actors that doing so will mean proximity to their political goal. That never happened.
Post 2008, Kashmir’s political movement has been overwhelmingly peaceful. Peaceful demonstrations, street protests and Internet-based activism replaced the armed movement. Was New Delhi’s response any different?
Let us consider India’s media semantics and the political response to Kashmir’s current peaceful movement. Most of India’s media call the peaceful protest demonstrations ‘clashes’. So when news headlines read ‘2 killed in Kashmir clashes’, it automatically goes on to justify the killings.
‘Clashes’ justify unconstitutional and undemocratic Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), Disturbed Areas Act, Public Safety Act and so on. ‘Clashes’ justify the killings of innocent men in fake encounters on the LoC for army officers to win prizes. And yet, Kashmiris are reminded that they live in a ‘democratic’ system.
The term ‘clash’ in itself is quite judgmental. It is common sense, unarmed men, women and children asking for right to demonstrate, and confronted by armed forces armed to the teeth, does not qualify for a clash. The statistics of loss speak for themselves. Over a hundred civilians have been killed, thousands are injured till date. And, except for a few minor injuries, there is not a single casualty on the side of the armed forces so far.
Barring a few exceptions, most of India’s media organizations are misleading the Indian people again. The images shown on the TV are smartly edited and censored. Their local reporters are under great pressure from their news rooms and ‘editorial advice’. Hardly any news channel has shown the ‘violence’ perpetrated on hundreds of thousands of Kashmiri homes by armed forces during protests. The broken windows and glasses of Kashmiri homes are crying for cameras. So do peaceful protests and the slogans raised there.
Fallacy number 2: It is quite well known that Kashmiris for a long time now have preferred to wage their political struggle on their own, leaving Pakistan out of the equation, in spite of it being a genuine party to the issue. Post 2008, Kashmir’s renewed political movement has been completely indigenous, with almost no outside support. But look at the irony.
Since June, a number of conspiracy theories have been floated about the current movement - this being LeT-sponsored, Pakistan-instigated, jehadi-masterminded and so on. These theories were laid to rest when chief minister Omar Abdullah himself termed this movement self propelled and leaderless. Why these contradictions, Kashmiris have a right to ask?
Fallacy number 3: The leaders of the post 90s Kashmiri political and militant movement have always been advised that if their movement were a secular one, they would gain sympathizers not only within India but beyond as well. Despite the fact that Kashmir’s mainstream political movement has never been Islamist, Kashmiri leaders have taken great pains lately to insist that while Kashmiris were overwhelmingly Muslim, that did not automatically mean religious exclusivity.
One of India’s respected newspapers, The Hindu, carried an article on Friday titled “Kashmir's new Islamist movement” by analyst Praveen Swami. As usual, Mr Swami’s sermon was that a quest for ‘Islamist exclusivity’ was driving the present Kashmiri movement. Unfortunately, this is what seems is being believed and consumed by New Delhi’s political establishment too.
As Kashmiris today try to come to terms with these hard realities, they have questions. They are holding no guns today. There is no Pakistan supplying arms and ammunition. And yet, New Delhi’s response is no different.
New Delhi says it still needs AFSPA, DAA, PSA etc. to maintain order (sic.). Curfews are endless. Bullets are being showered on peaceful protesters like water cannons. Army has been given a go ahead to submit people into silence. People are being detained at a large scale. Media has been silenced.
Despite all this, Kashmiris find no friends today. No sympathizers. No civil society actors of India demanding all this to end. No international community shedding tears. No one saying Kashmiris do not deserve all this. No one supporting their political cause.
And all these are disturbing questions.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Kashmir 2010 Unrest
Beyond the cul-de-sac
All Kashmiri parties need to sit and chart a common agenda now
Arjimand Hussain Talib
Kashmir today has a moment of truth across the political divide - for the ruling National Conference (NC), for the opposition People’s Democratic Party (PDP), for the two factions of the Hurriyat Conference and others on their side. It is a moment of truth for any Baskhshis-or-G M Shahs-in-the-making too.
It is also a moment for Kashmir’s opinion makers to shun ambiguity and speak out of their heart.
The sacred blood of Kashmiri youngsters spilled on our roads today must remind everybody that it has been enough of political bluffing and politicking. It is a moment of sincere introspection by everybody - New Delhi, Islamabad, the Hurriyats, United Jehad Council (UJC), NC, PDP, just everybody.
For NC, it is a moment which seems to raise questions on its very existence. A party which formed the government in 2008 on the basis of some 25,000 votes it got in eight assembly segments of Srinagar out of some 700,000 eligible voters; it is a moment of real worry.
There are reasons to believe that the Chief Minister Omar Abdullah continues to remain anonymously on the Facebook. If so, he must be aware of the extremities of public mood against his party, government and his actions today.
Logically speaking, the options before Omar are limited today. If his government decides to take a cue from the recent National Conference’s political resolution on the restoration of autonomy he can’t do that because he rules with a coalition with the Congress Party. If the party today continues with its policy of ratifying New Delhi’s iron hand approach in dealing with the unrest, its political loss is surely going to aggravate. It has to think beyond for the sake of its political survival.
When it comes to the PDP, NC’s woes do not necessarily mean its advantage today. Since it came to power in 2004 it has had the advantage of a ‘feel good feeling’ about its rule among certain rural pockets in the valley. That ‘feel good’ feeling had something to do with the reigning in of the Special Operations Group (SOG) and creating a sense of security among the people in the country side. But that ‘feel good’ feeling for it is also withering away.
There are credible reports that New Delhi through some of its emissaries did explore the possibility of this party forming the government during the last few weeks. Credible sources also indicate that the PDP dismissed this probability. The party is understood to have set three pre-conditions for considering such a possibility - revocation of AFSPA, withdrawal of some forces from civilian areas and release of some political prisoners.
For New Delhi heeding to these demands at this moment looks improbable. Obviously, it would prefer offering such a political ‘package’ to those groups which challenge its rule altogether in the state. It is also highly improbable that the National Conference would take such an arrangement with grace, allowing huge political advantage to PDP.
New Delhi’s political position on and military actions in Kashmir stand seriously questioned at the international level today. There was a time when it won real sympathies from big powers when it showcased Islamic radicalism being at the heart of Kashmir’s political movement. As Kashmir’s political movement is getting increasingly peaceful again New Delhi is facing some real problems. Its political and economic investments in Kashmir also lie in tatters today. The street movement of the youngsters will not die down. It has no option other than to negotiate a new political arrangement with Srinagar today.
Although the two factions of the Hurriyat Conference enjoy clear political advantage in the current situation, this advantage could be short-lived. The problem is that while staying away from each other, they acquire some serious limitations in transforming this advantage into some meaningful political achievement. Their organizational limitations about embracing a purposeful dialogue and offering viable political and economic visions beyond the status quo are serious.
The second limitation of two Hurriyats is that they are today not in a position to greatly influence the people on the streets who go by their own wisdom and instincts in conveying their political aspirations.
The two individuals who are currently underground and are setting the protest calendars have limitations too. No matter their commitment to their political cause, they have limited political acumen to translate the strengths of the people’s street mobilisation into a tangible political achievement.
The people of Kashmir have yet again demonstrated that the political status quo to them is both unbearable and unacceptable. They have offered immense sacrifices, but there is a word of caution for the people charting protest calendars: they must not push people beyond a point. Moderation is key to every success.
A tangible political achievement which can bring Kashmiris the much-needed freedom from military oppression, political control, economic plunder and cultural onslaught could be brought about only if all the Kashmiri parties across the political divide come together to chart out a common minimum agenda. That would require personal egos to be shun. That would also require a realisation that monumental psychological, economic and physical suffering of the last six decades is too immense to be continued as such.
This line of thinking does not symbolise political idealism only. It is a real necessity for the Kashmiri nation today.
Political untouchability may satisfy personal egos of political figures but it will not help the cause of the Kashmiri nation. Any attempt by any political formation to create conditions for grabbing power at this point of time will be a monumental folly.
For a common ground some principles are important to agree on. Under no circumstances should this peaceful people’s movement transform into an armed movement. New Delhi, on its part, must publicly commit itself to a political position and process as set out by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in 1947. United Jehad Council (UJC) must renounce armed struggle and join the political process. The United Nations must be the principal organization overseeing demilitarisation and demobilization of arms. This process must accompany a dignified return of Kashmiri Pandits to their homes under UN supervision.
Such process also needs some more appreciations. One that Kashmir’s current relation with New Delhi is both unjust and unnatural. Two, absolute independence for Kashmir cannot come overnight. It will have to be a gradual process, with building of institutions, capacities and viable economic relations with its neighbors. An accession with Pakistan at this point of time is improbable too.
This approach could be possible only if Islamabad also commits itself to the principles that former President Gen. Parvez Musharraf voiced during his rule.
Kashmiris, on their part, need to appreciate and understand the challenges faced by Pakistan to its interests and existence. They need to remain sensitive to its water needs in any future political set up. They also need to remain sensitive to India’s geo-political interests towards its northern borders. Nothing will come in a single go. But, yes, if all Kashmiri parties shun egos and narrow political power ambitions, many things are possible.
All Kashmiri parties need to sit and chart a common agenda now
Arjimand Hussain Talib
Kashmir today has a moment of truth across the political divide - for the ruling National Conference (NC), for the opposition People’s Democratic Party (PDP), for the two factions of the Hurriyat Conference and others on their side. It is a moment of truth for any Baskhshis-or-G M Shahs-in-the-making too.
It is also a moment for Kashmir’s opinion makers to shun ambiguity and speak out of their heart.
The sacred blood of Kashmiri youngsters spilled on our roads today must remind everybody that it has been enough of political bluffing and politicking. It is a moment of sincere introspection by everybody - New Delhi, Islamabad, the Hurriyats, United Jehad Council (UJC), NC, PDP, just everybody.
For NC, it is a moment which seems to raise questions on its very existence. A party which formed the government in 2008 on the basis of some 25,000 votes it got in eight assembly segments of Srinagar out of some 700,000 eligible voters; it is a moment of real worry.
There are reasons to believe that the Chief Minister Omar Abdullah continues to remain anonymously on the Facebook. If so, he must be aware of the extremities of public mood against his party, government and his actions today.
Logically speaking, the options before Omar are limited today. If his government decides to take a cue from the recent National Conference’s political resolution on the restoration of autonomy he can’t do that because he rules with a coalition with the Congress Party. If the party today continues with its policy of ratifying New Delhi’s iron hand approach in dealing with the unrest, its political loss is surely going to aggravate. It has to think beyond for the sake of its political survival.
When it comes to the PDP, NC’s woes do not necessarily mean its advantage today. Since it came to power in 2004 it has had the advantage of a ‘feel good feeling’ about its rule among certain rural pockets in the valley. That ‘feel good’ feeling had something to do with the reigning in of the Special Operations Group (SOG) and creating a sense of security among the people in the country side. But that ‘feel good’ feeling for it is also withering away.
There are credible reports that New Delhi through some of its emissaries did explore the possibility of this party forming the government during the last few weeks. Credible sources also indicate that the PDP dismissed this probability. The party is understood to have set three pre-conditions for considering such a possibility - revocation of AFSPA, withdrawal of some forces from civilian areas and release of some political prisoners.
For New Delhi heeding to these demands at this moment looks improbable. Obviously, it would prefer offering such a political ‘package’ to those groups which challenge its rule altogether in the state. It is also highly improbable that the National Conference would take such an arrangement with grace, allowing huge political advantage to PDP.
New Delhi’s political position on and military actions in Kashmir stand seriously questioned at the international level today. There was a time when it won real sympathies from big powers when it showcased Islamic radicalism being at the heart of Kashmir’s political movement. As Kashmir’s political movement is getting increasingly peaceful again New Delhi is facing some real problems. Its political and economic investments in Kashmir also lie in tatters today. The street movement of the youngsters will not die down. It has no option other than to negotiate a new political arrangement with Srinagar today.
Although the two factions of the Hurriyat Conference enjoy clear political advantage in the current situation, this advantage could be short-lived. The problem is that while staying away from each other, they acquire some serious limitations in transforming this advantage into some meaningful political achievement. Their organizational limitations about embracing a purposeful dialogue and offering viable political and economic visions beyond the status quo are serious.
The second limitation of two Hurriyats is that they are today not in a position to greatly influence the people on the streets who go by their own wisdom and instincts in conveying their political aspirations.
The two individuals who are currently underground and are setting the protest calendars have limitations too. No matter their commitment to their political cause, they have limited political acumen to translate the strengths of the people’s street mobilisation into a tangible political achievement.
The people of Kashmir have yet again demonstrated that the political status quo to them is both unbearable and unacceptable. They have offered immense sacrifices, but there is a word of caution for the people charting protest calendars: they must not push people beyond a point. Moderation is key to every success.
A tangible political achievement which can bring Kashmiris the much-needed freedom from military oppression, political control, economic plunder and cultural onslaught could be brought about only if all the Kashmiri parties across the political divide come together to chart out a common minimum agenda. That would require personal egos to be shun. That would also require a realisation that monumental psychological, economic and physical suffering of the last six decades is too immense to be continued as such.
This line of thinking does not symbolise political idealism only. It is a real necessity for the Kashmiri nation today.
Political untouchability may satisfy personal egos of political figures but it will not help the cause of the Kashmiri nation. Any attempt by any political formation to create conditions for grabbing power at this point of time will be a monumental folly.
For a common ground some principles are important to agree on. Under no circumstances should this peaceful people’s movement transform into an armed movement. New Delhi, on its part, must publicly commit itself to a political position and process as set out by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in 1947. United Jehad Council (UJC) must renounce armed struggle and join the political process. The United Nations must be the principal organization overseeing demilitarisation and demobilization of arms. This process must accompany a dignified return of Kashmiri Pandits to their homes under UN supervision.
Such process also needs some more appreciations. One that Kashmir’s current relation with New Delhi is both unjust and unnatural. Two, absolute independence for Kashmir cannot come overnight. It will have to be a gradual process, with building of institutions, capacities and viable economic relations with its neighbors. An accession with Pakistan at this point of time is improbable too.
This approach could be possible only if Islamabad also commits itself to the principles that former President Gen. Parvez Musharraf voiced during his rule.
Kashmiris, on their part, need to appreciate and understand the challenges faced by Pakistan to its interests and existence. They need to remain sensitive to its water needs in any future political set up. They also need to remain sensitive to India’s geo-political interests towards its northern borders. Nothing will come in a single go. But, yes, if all Kashmiri parties shun egos and narrow political power ambitions, many things are possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)