Creating a win-win-win for all from the current movement
Arjimand Hussain Talib
For the first time in many decades, Kashmir’s movement for the restoration of its lost political sovereignty has attained a big moral high ground. The current upsurge – which many Indian analysts admit is an uprising - has a real potential of taking Kashmir out from its decades-old suffering. It has also a potential to bring India and Pakistan closer with a new approach. Let us remember, the happenings in Kashmir today are guiding their political responses, and not the vice versa.
For the first time in several decades, India’s political and media establishments are seeing Kashmir’s yearning for rigged political sovereignty as it has been – fundamentally indigenous. There is real nervousness, and even discomfort. New Delhi seems to be short of ideas to contain the vivid political expression in Kashmir today.
Even at the height of militancy, when its rule was challenged to great lengths, it has never been as nervous. There is a growing public perception in India that New Delhi’s moral standing on Kashmir is weak, and hence the need for re-thinking the 60-year-old approach of military control and political manipulation.
Then see the language India’s media is using on Kashmir today. The clichés like ‘Pakistan-instigated’, ‘Pakistan-sponsored’ ‘Pakistani-backed’ etc. seem to have suddenly disappeared. For the first time in our living memory, news anchors on India’s TV news channels are short of words and arguments. The tone and tenor of the opinion makers in print media – including the top columnists – has changed. Such is the awe of the beauty of Kashmir’s current people’s movement.
Pakistan, on its part, seems to be watching and just going by the tide. Its response to the happenings in Kashmir has been muted – which, in the present circumstances, Kashmiris must appreciate fits the situation well.
Clearly, Pakistan cannot afford a groundswell of anger and upsurge among its population at this point of time vis-a-vis Kashmir. It is confronted with too many odds today. For Islamabad too, nothing could be as perfect a time as today to talk to India on Kashmir with its ears to the ground.
There are certain people in Kashmir who expect Pakistan to engage in Kashmir more proactively today. Sensible politics demands that Pakistan steers clear from the current movement of Kashmir, as it has been doing for a long time now. That will be as much a good to Kashmir as Pakistan itself. Admitted, there is a political cost to that – Kashmiris will mistake Pakistan’s silence and lack of support to its indifference. But given the longer term benefits of letting Kashmir’s movement evolve on its own, this cost will be paltry.
Kashmiris, on their part, must maintain the momentum of the current movement at all costs. That is a feeling nursed by an overwhelming majority of Kashmiris today. If the momentum of this movement is lost, it will take quite a lot to renew that again.
There is also an overwhelming view making the rounds in Kashmir today - that it is much better to undergo a prolonged suffering in one go to achieve a meaningful political goal rather than dying in perpetual everyday uncertainty and chaos. Such an opinion has its merit too.
But Kashmiris today have to guard against the temptations of militant transformation of this movement. The current level of oppression is seen by many youngsters as a big provocation and challenge ‘to their power and manhood.’ There are already stray voices of youngsters on social networking sites talking about guns and suicide missions. That course would be a collective suicide for Kashmiris, which must be avoided at all costs.
Sooner or later, given the supremacy of people’s peaceful movement, New Delhi will have to budge from its traditional standpoint on Kashmir in a significant manner. It has no other options. If it takes the Sri Lanka’s approach of mass slaughter of the Tamils last year, its cause in Kashmir will be lost for ever, with much wider ramifications. If it tries to buy time and take to same experiments it has been fiddling with since decades here, it is poised for a much larger upsurge among Kashmiris in the future. Kashmiris’ Gen-Next is different, so are their means and resolve to resist.
India’s Home Minister P Chidambaram’s offer of talks to the pro-freedom parties in Kashmir needs not be rejected altogether. Today pro-freedom parties in Kashmir have a big bargaining chip at hand. For that to materialize into some political achievement, both the Hurriyat factions need to meet and discuss a possible agenda for talks. If they do not meet, they will lose it again. Entering into a dialogue does not mean an automatic surrender or sell-out. However, sensible diplomacy demands that these people keep their doors half-open once they enter the dialogue room.
However, for the Hurriyats entering into any such dialogue without some confidence building steps from New Delhi would be too risky. The people of Kashmir today are too sensitive about the question of talks. They must get a feeling of achievement before talks could be initiated. It is not a bad idea to keep homework on one’s bottom lines done well ahead of time.
But there has to be caution. Any talks which may boil down to salvaging New Delhi from the current situation will be unacceptable to Kashmiris. The two Hurriyats can always walk out if they feel that the format and the substance of talks are no different than the past.
If, however, they sense a change in New Delhi’s heart, they could enlarge the scope of dialogue by inviting parties like the NC and PDP to support that process.
It would also not be a bad time to consult Islamabad before entering into such talks. At this point of time Islamabad might have some good ideas about such a dialogue process. However, it would be nice to leave the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) out from the scope of discussions at this moment. Pakistan has some real concerns if the treaty is taken up for re-negotiations. There is ample space for Kashmir under the present system of IWT which could be maneuvered.
As a sequel to such process, further Kashmir-centric Indo-Pak talks which are held in the spirit of mutual win-win as against the usual one-upmanship would not be bad either. It could well be the beginning of a new era of conflict resolution, disengagement from Afghanistan and real cooperation between the two countries.
Latest reports indicate that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called for an all-J&K-parties’ meeting in New Delhi on Tuesday. In theory it makes sense to consult ‘democratically elected representatives’, but it is now a well established fact that these representatives at best represent certain people’s day to day governance needs and not the political aspirations of the masses.
As such, the process must go beyond the parties which are part basically part of the problem than a solution for Kashmir.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
End of Kashmiri fallacy?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)