A view-point from Jammu

By Anit Singh. Dated: 5/25/2018 2:12:00 PM

Kashmir: Need to break the vicious cycle of violence
Violence can always be suppressed and the chances of overthrowing a legitimately elected government in world history are so low that the future of Kashmiri struggle seems to be shrouded in permanent misery and despair.

More than ever now, the Kashmir cauldron seems to be on the verge of boiling over. The trend of local populace going to the encounter sites in order to try and protect the militants reveals the intensity of the emotions felt by the general public and to what extent are they going to go in order to fight for their stated goals.
What is surprising, however, is the lack of a charismatic leader who could've led the movement to some definitive goal. Instead we have an entire generation going out one by one in individual acts of bravery that don't serve to take forward the cause of Kashmir but they do inspire many more acts of similar nature.
One cannot therefore be not reminded of the similar stage in the Indian national freedom struggle. When Gandhian non-cooperation in Chauri-Chaura had failed, when the youth fed up with the limited struggle espoused by the national parties decided to take situation into its own hands and a spate of assassination attempts, train robberies, countrywide hidden organisations cropped up.
Endless Revolutionary Period
It is difficult to imagine what road the Indian independence movement would have taken had it not been for Gandhian leadership and philosophy. Violence can always be suppressed and the chances of overthrowing a legitimately elected government in world history are so low that the future of Kashmiri struggle seems to be shrouded in permanent misery and despair.
Obviously there are a lot of differences between then and now. While the argument can be made that for the current generation of Kashmiris, India is as much of an alien, colonising power as Britain was to India, but the bigger narratives aren't the same. Kashmir is ruled by elected representatives of the people, the official machinery is primarily Kashmiri, cultural repression is not being practised and the level of welfare being poured in Kashmir perhaps outweighs any other part of the country. Is Indian treatment any different for Kashmir than say what India would've done had the same sort of uprising occurred in Tamil Nadu?
The religious undertones in the struggle for Azadi were present in the Indian struggle as well. Its consequences were apparent in partition but the seeds of division were sown as soon as extremist leaders of Congress like Bal Gangadhar Tilak started using Hindu revivalistic philosophies as a basis for the struggle. A lot of bad blood has flown in the process of nationalisation, where the identities that the people formed were those of being either a Hindustani or a Pakistani. Kashmir too has ejected its Pandits, but given the mood of extremism, it was perhaps inevitable.
When Bhagat Singh and his HSRA denounced violence, it was not because they were cowed down by the official repression. Rather, it was the dawning of greater understanding amongst the well read revolutionaries that violence was detrimental to their own cause. They had firm faith in the righteousness of their demands and a clearly stated goal of independence and therefore, there was no need for them to keep on using violence once the "deaf had been made to hear" and the "slumbering masses awakened."
Revolutionaries differed from militants in their methodology too. Not only was the revolutionary movement aimed at revealing the weakness of the Raj, but also the revolutionary violence was aimed at individuals and not at masses. In short it wasn't a blackmail to threaten the British but rather a self sacrificing movement of living up to the highest human ideals. Bhagat Singh renounced religion towards the end of his life as that too seemed to him like a chain to hold back self actualising potential that humans have.
Self Perpetuating Cycle
Kashmir in this regard is starkly different. Not only has violence been glorified towards no end, but more worryingly, the aim of the movement in Kashmir seems to have become a sort of vehicle towards endless perpetuation of the violence. The question hangs in the air, why?
While the leaders of the Indian freedom struggle were prolific writers, philosophers, and poets whose ideologies were widely discussed and debated, I find the lack of any popular book/pamphlet and/or organised set of thoughts regarding the Kashmir issue by Kashmiri intellectuals highly disturbing. I am not talking about horrifying real life accounts of what transpired in Kashmir. A Bashrat Peer cannot give a well defined vision like Nehru did or Rajagopalachari did. Where are the statesmen who'd articulate the cause of Kashmir in clear words and explain what is it that Kashmir wants? Where are the moral leaders whose stake in the movement goes beyond securing central grants and seats for their own wards in foreign universities?
Being a resident of Jammu and Kashmir, am I not a part Kashmir? Do I not share the same land and breathe in the same air as my Kashmiri brethren do? Can't my voice carry over the mountains and reach those who are in pain and offer them some solace? But to do that, I need to believe in the righteousness of their demands, for I still believe that India even during its worst days has been a democracy. What more can Kashmir achieve if it becomes a separate nation?
Taboos That Need Breaking
Absolutely no one talks about what would actually happen if Kashmir got its Azadi. Its as much a taboo as is the suggestion that India was not fully correct in taking over a Muslim majority province in the first place during partition.
Even so, I feel that this part needs due emphasis as well. Had Kashmir gone to Pakistan, it's condition would've been similar to Pakistan Administered Kashmir in all likelihood. The Pakistan side of Kashmir is lagging behind in almost every social metrics. This data can be cross examined by numerous online agencies. The state of the Shia minority in Pakistan performs worse than minorities in India, the Baloch people wouldn't have had to rise against their co-religionists otherwise.
If India withdraws its forces from Kashmir, the Pakistani army would be compelled to take over. The Pakistani identity is centred upon securing Kashmir and with so many years of militaristic propaganda behind them, it would be futile to wish otherwise. Would Kashmir be happier then? Pakistan's Punjabi Sunni Muslim populace would overwhelm the valley. Kashmiris would be a religious, ethnic minority. The pressures of exploding population would cause even more exploitation without constitutional protections. Cross border terrorism might find new roots in India then. The same cycle of violence would continue? Is this the future Kashmir wants?
J&K doesn't have the resources, the intellectual capital or the geography to flourish alone. Perhaps, I don't have the capacity to see beyond certain probabilities. Are there any facts to explain how an independent Kashmir would function through meagre exports and tourism alone?
If China takes over, then I don't need to elaborate what would happen.
If an extremist formation, somewhat like ISIS takes over, I don't think it would lead to better results.
The forgotten "And" in J&K
These options are so insular that they are not acceptable to entirety of J&K. Kashmir valley is not an isolated box in the state. Whatever happens there, has an impact on everyone else too. It was Pakistani leadership which believed in the two nation theory, so India never really went against its principals in trying to acquire Kashmir. Why wouldn't a state try to maximise its territory?
Lacking a proper moral and philosophical framework, how can a proper leadership even emerge? The political cycle of berating the party in power for being Indian stooges and oppressing the opposition has run its course. Governance has suffered too long because of it.
This leads me to my final and most important question. Is the lack of a well defined strategy for future, lack of an inclusive ideology, moral framework etc. a deliberate ploy to keep on lingering the movement of violence forever? Are there vested interests in the state who keep on profiting from the violence while the common people suffer?
Imagine if a movement for independence started in Kud district tomorrow. There would be no explanation for why and how, but there'd be a lot of violence and demand for freedom. How should J&K State respond to that? How would anyone respond to that? I am a resident of this state and I am tired of the cycle of violence and the resulting mal-administration. Is anyone willing to answer me in clear terms now?
Prerogative for peace
It is well neigh impossible to convince someone if they don't want to be convinced or if the reasons for their animosity are primarily emotive. The fractured psyche of any war zone populace doesn't seek rational solutions. Has Kashmir too fallen victim to the spiralling hatred for the state which they see as an external power? Can a solution be sought without more violence?
Any legitimate solution would require the lead of Kashmiri youth. They're the ones in crosshairs now. Development and jobs are a priority but not an end state for them. They need to come out and start a discussion about what they want and how they want it.
Their choices may be limited, but not making any choice at all would condemn them to forever live in the same spiral. Their future might seem bleak, but there's hope for those alone who strive. They must not strive in vain. Why not come into open and dispel the darkness that fuels the entire movement? Why must anyone hide behind guns when truth alone can liberate?

 

Video

The Gaza Crisis and the Global Fallout... Read More
 

FACEBOOK

 

Daily horoscope

 

Weather