The writer is an assistant professor, St Josephs College, Bangalore.
OVER the last few months, there have been multiple attacks carried out by Kashmiri rebels on the Indian armed forces.
Indian national dailies and electronic channels are flashing headlines such as ‘re-emergence of militancy in the Valley’ and ‘disturbance of peace’. The words ‘re-emergence’ and ‘peace’ need considerable reflection.
The Indian state has not been able to suppress the movement through its coercive apparatus, but it has been able to manipulate the discourse to discredit the movement. The discourse of ‘peace’ is one such tool used by the Indian state.
The basis for this statist argument about ‘peace’ is three-fold — decline in the levels of ‘militancy’ and ‘violence’ in the Valley, participation of people in the electoral process and their engagement in recreational activity and ‘empowerment’ projects.
Though protests dominated in the past few years, there was never any declaration of ceasefire by armed groups. This period witnessed fighting between armed groups and the Indian forces in different regions of Indian Kashmir. The division of the resistance movement into violent and non-violent phases is not translated into support for either. The decrease in direct participation in the armed resistance is not synonymous with the end of the movement.
As far as violence is concerned, it has decreased, if one agrees with the statist definition of ‘violence’, in terms of attacks by armed groups and increase in the levels of tourism. This definition of ‘violence’ varies according to perspective.
The violence faced by Kashmiris on a daily basis — illegal detention, torture and custodial deaths — persists in the ‘peaceful’ years. Pro self-determination leaders continue to face arrests under the Public Safety Act. Enforced disappearances and fake encounters by Indian armed forces are ongoing. For the last two decades the major threat to Kashmiris has come from the culture of impunity that prevails among the Indian armed forces. The recent discovery of unmarked graves near army camps adds to the memory of violence. To read the fewer number of militant acts, or no major incidents, as the advent of peace in the Valley is immature.
Secondly the electoral process is used as a measure of ‘peace’ in Kashmir. The logic of the state goes something like this: ‘the people participated in the elections, where they voted for the government (hence for India), which means they are against the movement of self determination.’
The hypothesis of ‘peace’ and ‘participation of election as a vote for India was negated in 2009 and 2010 when people were again on the streets chanting slogans of ‘azadi’.
As far as participation in elections is concerned, the population in the Valley has discovered that it can pursue its short-term economic objectives by taking part in the official, state-sponsored electoral process while continuing to express its long-term demands for azadi outside the institutional political framework.
This dynamic is a strategic compartmentalisation by the Kashmiri people of their short-term interests concerning daily issues of management and governance, and is different from their long-term goal of self-determination.
Another dimension of the ‘peaceful’ years claimed by the Indian state is the engagement of people in recreational activities and ‘empowerment’ projects. True, the last few years have seen various sports tournaments being organised by the authorities.
There has been renovation of sporting grounds even in localities which only recently were termed as ‘sensitive’ and the ‘hub of stone-pelters’. No doubt the young generation has showcased its promise in these tournaments. One can only appreciate the talent of these young boys and girls who amidst the turmoil can compete with the ‘others’.
It is noteworthy that the many such sporting events are being organised by the Indian armed forces — either these forces, in the name of goodwill, are in search of legitimacy or they are trying to Indianise the local population.
One must understand what is behind this face of the state of India, how in the name of ‘peace’ and ‘normalcy’ sports activities are being promoted to divert the people’s attention from the real issues.
Cultural, sports and recreational activities are sponsored and given priority over other burning issues like human rights, de-militarisation, fake encounters and disappearances.
India announces the empowerment of Kashmiri women by creating self-help groups under the Umeed project but there is no justice for those who have been raped by the Indian armed forces. The proposal to develop skills for appropriate jobs under the Himayat project is making waves but the youth put behind bars under the Public Safety Act are not released.
The discourse of ‘peace’ of a ‘ruling’ state varies from that of its ‘ruled’ subjects. The calm for a short period of time, developmental activities in the region or people’s participation in democratic institutions have become the new variables for defining ‘peace’ by states, whether it involves China defining a ‘peaceful’ Tibet, Israel defining a ‘peaceful’ Gaza or India defining a ‘peaceful’ northeast, Red Corridor in the tribal areas or Kashmir.
From the perspective of the common people, justice is an important constituent of peace. Without justice, peace is a hollow slogan and there can be no justice if the basic rights and aspirations of the people are not respected.
Short periods of calm cannot be regarded as the equivalent of peace. Denial of basic human rights — the right to life and the right to self-determination — itself amounts to violence. Unless this issue is addressed, the return of peace to Kashmir will remain a distant dream. http://dawn.com/news/1023791/the-myth-of-peace
Be First to Comment