By Irfan Husain
Slowly, ever so slowly, the ongoing crisis in Kashmir is seeping into the world's consciousness.
Indian police and paramilitary soldiers watch Kashmiri Muslim protesters from a distance during a protest in Srinagar, India, Friday, Sept. 3, 2010. Indian police fired tear gas shells Friday to disperse protesters. - Photo by AP.
For years, this unfolding tragedy was explained away through Indian charges of Pakistani involvement in the freedom movement. Much of this was true, as official and unofficial players supported an armed insurgency. But what is happening now in the Valley has nothing to do with cross-border incursions by jihadi militants.
The ongoing protest movement is spearheaded by teenagers armed with nothing except stones and the strength of their convictions. The only shots that have been fired have been by Indian security forces who have caused scores of deaths and injuries among these unarmed protesters. The problem for an uncaring Indian government is that this movement shows no signs of flagging.
If these protests have placed New Delhi in a quandary, they have also marginalised Islamabad. Suddenly, shadowy spooks and Islamic militant groups in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir find themselves sidelined by an amorphous, popular uprising that has no time for home-grown or Pakistani terrorists.
In a recent article (London Review of Books, July 22), Tariq Ali wrote: "Now a new generation of Kashmiri youth is on the march. They fight, like the young Palestinians, with stones. Many have lost their fear of death and will not surrender. Ignored by politicians at home, abandoned by Pakistan, they are developing the independence of spirit that comes with isolation and it will not easily be quelled. It's unlikely, however, that the prime minister of India and his colleagues will pay any attention to them…."
The Palestinian analogy is apt. There, young stone-throwing protesters have forced their struggle on to the international agenda, as the latest American effort to promote a settlement of the dispute gets under way in Washington. However, the difference lies in how these two conflicts are viewed by the world: the death of a Palestinian protester makes headlines, while several Kashmiris can be killed without any media attention.
Why this difference in how the global media covers these two freedom movements? One reason lies in the fact that while Palestine is viewed as Israeli-occupied territory, Kashmir is considered an integral part of India. Another factor is that India is seen as a reasonable, humane country. As home to Mahatma Gandhi, most people in the West have been influenced by India's hugely successful projection of its soft power. So much so that people are often blind to its use of hard power.
New Delhi's crude attempts to crush the movement have resulted in thousands of deaths over the last two decades. An Indian reader recently asked me how the government should deal with the uprising. I suggested that it needs to talk with Kashmiri leaders, and not just lock them up or shoot them. The problem is that the Indian establishment views the ongoing protests as a security issue, not a political one. Indians often see protesters as traitors, and treat them as such.
However, the situation has changed with Pakistan's virtual absence from the equation. For years, India had accused Islamabad - often with justification - of trying to force a change in the status quo by force. This no longer holds true. Now, even the most rabid Indian nationalist concedes the indigenous nature of the movement.
So what are the options open to the Indian government? The truth is that there is little sympathy in India for the Kashmiri protesters. Left and liberal forces are largely silent on the issue. They may feel uncomfortable over the use of lethal force against unarmed teenagers, but do not really want to confront the core issue of azadi, or freedom, the Kashmiris are demanding.
To be sure, India is not going to give an inch on the question of Kashmiri independence. Over the last 60 years, the Indian position has hardened to the point of becoming a central plank in its national consensus. No Indian politician is prepared to make any concessions. So does this mean an endless use of force to crush a popular, largely peaceful movement? The Economist sees a glimmer of hope. In its Banyan column, the UK weekly says:
"Eventually, however, India may have to contemplate a political solution, for two reasons. One is that small cracks are already appearing in the national consensus behind its repressive policies. So long as it was fighting Pakistan, even liberal Indian opinion seemed ready to tolerate a heavy hand in Kashmir. Less so now that its troops are killing children armed only with stones. Secondly, without change, the cycle of protests will resume.…"
Given India's refusal to countenance any changes to the political frontiers of Kashmir, and the popular demand for azadi, how can these extreme positions be bridged? Thus far, little attempt has been made to improve life for the impoverished people of the Valley. Civil unrest and two decades of terrorism have kept tourists away. There is an acute and chronic power shortage in the disputed territory that generates a lot of hydro-electric power, most of which is taken elsewhere. Very little private investment comes to the troubled Valley. Unemployment is rife.
Under these conditions, nobody should be surprised that young people have risen in revolt. But even more than economic factors, it is the oppressive presence of over half a million security personnel in the disputed territory that infuriates Kashmiris. Indian officials point out that most of their soldiers are deployed along the Line of Control to counter the Pakistani military presence there.
All the greater need, then, to talk to Pakistan and sort out outstanding border issues, and discuss autonomy issues with Kashmiri leaders. In the original agreements between Britain, India and Pakistan, states at the time of independence only had the option of joining India or Pakistan. But after years of indifference, downright neglect, and repression, Kashmiri attitudes have hardened, too. Now, it seems that the young protesters want nothing to do with either India or Pakistan.
However, in the real world, we seldom get exactly what we want. If India wants to resolve this intractable issue, just wishing it will go away on its own is no longer an option.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment