Short Takes: Kashmir Unrest

Topic: Kashmir Unrest

"People of Jammu and Kashmir had enormous faith in Atal Bihari Vajpayee….he used to say 

'Insaniyat, Kashmiriyat and Jamhooriyat are key to progress of Jammu and Kashmir'. We have to take the state to new heights through these pillars."

- PM Narendra Modi

{Translation: Insaniyat (Humanism), Jamhooriyat (Democracy) and Kashmiriyat (Kashmir's age-old legacy of Hindu-Muslim amity)}

Na bandook se na goli se, baat banegi boli se...

- Mufti Muhammad Saeed

(Former CM of Jammu and Kashmir)

Democracies are, at their core, processes for peoples with different views and interests to negotiate civic arrangements; riot police are a symptom of their breakdown, not a solution.

Who was Burhan Wani?

Burhan Wani was a famous militant leader in the Kashmir Valley.

• ·     22-year-old “commander” of the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen
• ·     Credited with mobilising a new generation of the disaffected in Jammu and Kashmir.
• ·     His engaging manner had turned him into a legend before his death, as he coasted on personal charisma and social media smarts to become the ‘poster boy’ of a new phase of Kashmiri militancy that is homegrown.
• ·     Wani was gunned down in an encounter by the security forces in the district of Anantnag. This led to the start of massive protests in the valley.
• 
  

Why did protests emerge after his encounter?

Burhan was able to establish a connection with hundreds of youth in the Kashmir Valley.

Short Term Reasons

After having got their man, the security forces failed spectacularly in managing the situation.

In the violent aftermath of his death, young men and women have taken the fight to the security forces on the street.

Long Term Reasons

Young men and women have become more embittered and radicalised recently. Their angst is directed at draconian laws that let military abuses on civilians go unpunished.

There is a return to home-grown insurgency, with religious radicalisation acting as a force multiplier this time. The latest uprising in Kashmir was waiting to happen for some time.

Trust deficit between the Valley and New Delhi has been eroded over the years and has now reached breaking point. For too long, Kashmiris believed that the Centre would address their grievances politically. They believed that in 2008, when civilians were killed, and again in 2010, when 116 young persons were killed.

There was a glimmer of hope in 2010, when the Centre had tried to address the anger then by sending a team of interlocutors, who painstakingly spoke to several stakeholders and turned in a report that referred to Kashmir as a “dispute”. No one, however, paid attention to the recommendations in the interlocutors’ report.

How the situation has evolved from protests of 2010 to the 

current cycle of protests?

In 2010, the stone-wielding youth were protesting against a fake encounter in which three innocents were killed. The demand for justice lay at the heart of the unrest. This time, the anger is widespread and the enraged youth have no demands. They appear fed up with New Delhi’s unwillingness to accept the very political nature of the Kashmir problem.

Now they are protesting for the encounter of a militant commander!!

How should the situation now be handled? 

Or, in future, if such a situation emerge, how should it be 

handled? What lessons can be learnt from the present episode?

It is imperative that any response should be measured and never grossly disproportionate to the cause of action — forgetting this lesson in Kashmir has time and again led to the fuelling of a further cycle of protests, to attracting more impressionable and aggrieved youngsters to attack symbols of authority.

In future multi-pronged approach can be adopted:

Security Measures

Use of Pellet Guns to control the attacking mobs have led to many civilians being killed or injured in the eye this month, with a high percentage having possibly lost vision altogether. Appropriate measure of force must be used to control the rioting mobs.

Inadequacies of Security Measures:

But these protests cannot be completely controlled by brute force.

When tens of thousands of Kashmiris hit the streets in mourning for a fallen militant, there is a spectrum of political opinion that presents itself. They can be dispersed with pellets. But if ‘mainstream’ politics does not speak to them, if their arguments are not heard patiently to be countered or fleshed out, as the case may be, the calm that eventually obtains will be an illusion.

To put the mourners of Burhan Wani in a with-us-against-us binary would, as Omar Abdullah has said, give him a recruiting power from beyond the grave. WE MUST SPEAK WITH THEM.

Political Dialogue

The Central and State governments have reached out to the Opposition and separatist leaders to dissuade young Kashmiris from street violence. But appeals for calm must be strengthened with a demonstrable capacity for a political conversation.

Government must show a willingness to speak especially with the All Parties Hurriyat Conference. Speaking with separatists is not something unheard of Indian politics. This is something that the Indian state has long done, witness in states from Manipur to Punjab to Nagaland.

New Delhi should push Kashmiri separatists to move beyond slogans, and spell out precisely what democratic rights they seek, so a conversation can begin on whether or not these can be met within the Indian Constitution.

Constitutional Solution

With some imagination, ways can be found to grant greater autonomy with no threat to India’s sovereignty. That was the case up until 1953, after which the state’s autonomy was continuously diluted. The time has come to go to the next level on Kashmir, which is bleeding India, tarnishing its image both internally and externally, providing ammunition to Pakistan and alienating a whole generation in the state. A government that cares for its people will have to walk the talk.

The 2010 team of interlocutors in its report had said: “We recommend that a Constitutional Committee (CC) be set up to review all Central Acts and Articles of the Constitution of India extended to the State after the signing of the 1952 Agreement.” No progress has been made since then.