12 July, 2016

Impasse In Kashmir

A muscular approach, coupled with development, cannot resolve the main political problem 
The upheaval in Kashmir after security forces killed the young Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani is yet another grim reminder of the failure of successive governments in New Delhi to address the volatile situation in the Valley in right earnest.Ever since militancy reared its head in J&K in 1989, their response to curb it has been on predictable lines: deploy the armed might of the Indian state to eliminate it root and branch and focus on development and good governance to win the hearts and minds of Kashmiris.Peace and normalcy would follow suit.

That hasn't happened. The nature of militancy itself has changed. The militants who attack security forces are increasingly local youth who are well-educated and who belong to well-to-do families. How many of them have crossed the border to receive training and procure arms is still a matter of conjecture. But growing evidence suggests that these are home-grown elements who no longer rely entirely on Pakistani largesse to wage their violent struggle against the Indian state.


Militancy has also acquired pernicious religious overtones. Until recently the secessionist forces sought to downplay the Islamic component of their `freedom movement'. No longer. The new breed of militants makes no bones of its adherence to a radicalised brand of Islam. The `movement' cannot be isolated from the turmoil in the Islamic world at large.

Another worrisome development is the popular support for militancy .There was a time when New Delhi could justifiably argue that the population of the Valley was by and large indifferent, if not hostile, to the militants on account of their depredations ­ intimidation, wanton killings, maltreatment of women etc. Today the huge crowds that turn up for the funerals of slain militants, the attacks on the security forces by ordinary civilians (including, most tellingly , by women), the strict observance of hartals and shut-downs decreed by separatist leaders and so forth tell another, altogether alarming story .

The result is there for all to see. No one can doubt the unyielding commitment of the security forces to maintain law and order in the face of extremely heavy odds.The casualties they have suffered in the exercise of their duties command respect and admiration. Yet the fact is that often their ham-handed riposte when they face angry mobs have generated more indignation and more retaliatory acts. Both sides are thus trapped in an infernal cycle of violence and counter-violence.
There is more. A sense of victimhood has existed in Kashmir since the dismissal and incarceration of Sheikh Abdullah in 1953. The sacking of subsequent chief ministers, the erosion of J&K's special status, rigged elections, lack of economic and social development, ineffective gover nance, alleged abuses of human rights and corruption heightened that sense.Now the sense of victimhood is being expressed more vociferously . And it is couched increasingly in communal terms.

Thus the separatists projected the state government's moves to establish separate housing facilities for retired sainiks from the state and for Kashmiri Pandits who were hounded out for their homes and to lengthen the duration of the Amarnath yatra as a sinister Indian design to change the demographic composition of the state. New Delhi's response to this evolving situation has been, to put it mildly , tepid.

The Centre does not seem to have learnt lessons from the past, especially from upheavals that followed the stonepelting agitation in the summer of 2010 and the hanging of Afzal Guru in February 2013. Now, as then, it has chosen to believe that cracking down on militants and their sympathisers and pouring in more funds for development would be sufficient to beat back secessionist forces.

This is tantamount to myopia. Not to read the writing on the wall ­ that the main problem is a political one ­ would plunge India's only Muslim-majority state into more turmoil. The only way to address the problem is to engage with all stakeholders, including the separatists, to determine how the diverse, even divergent, political aspirations of people in J&K can be met without compromising India's security interests.

New Delhi must also swiftly find ways and means to engage the powers that be in Pakistan to reach a negotiated settlement of the Kashmir issue. In the worst case scenario, the resumed dialogue might yield nothing more than hot air. This would serve to expose its fundamental intent, that relentless hostility to India can alone ensure the raison d'être of Pakistan.

The best ­ though admittedly farfetched ­ scenario would be that Pakistan's de facto rulers have realised that continuing hostility towards India only complicates their problems with Afghanistan and their efforts to stem the upsurge of terror violence in their own country . They just might opt ­ as Pervez Musharraf did ­ to move towards a pragmatic settlement of Kashmir.

Either way , India has little to lose but much to gain to resume the `composite dialogue' with Pakistan. At the very least, this would go some way to cool tempers in the Valley . That, in turn, would give the PDP-BJP coalition government in J&K breathing space to recover its reflexes that the latest upheaval appears to have numbed. 

By Dileep Padgaonkar

Courtesy: Times of India

No comments:

Post a Comment