No sane Indian irrespective of his/her political affiliation, religious persuasion or ideological conviction would quibble with the utopian notion that the Kashmir imbroglio warrants a harmonious settlement, a speedy resolution that would once and for all upend the ugly discord. But the million-dollar question is how.
The joint statement issued by some prominent personalities including Justice A P Shah, former foreign minister Yashwant Sinha, ex-Punjab DGP Julio Ribeiro, historian Ramachandra Guha and senior journalist Shekhar Gupta that seeks to address the Kashmir issue is a bizarre pronouncement; it reads like a naive essay penned by a 6-year-old, high on an emotional scale (“only bonds of love and understanding will bind India together”) but wanting in pragmatic reality; it conveys a narrow limited perspective—that of the Kashmiri Muslim, marginalises the rights of other minorities and disregards the ramifications of gubernatorial responsibilities. It is too lopsided to be a roadmap to a successful outcome. It belongs to la-la land.
On face value, it appears to be well-intentioned; a heartfelt outpouring for peace and goodwill. But a critical analysis unravels a deadly Pandora’s box—a nuanced attempt laced with loaded innuendoes intent on embarrassing the current government, an unrealistic sermon that undercuts the basis of a constitutional democracy.
The timing of this statement on the Mahatma’s death anniversary is a skillful adjunct to exploit his aura. Unfortunately, it is an incongruous association: The violent turmoil they seek to highlight is the very antithesis of what Gandhi stood for. Would the apostle of non-violence have approved of Burhan Wani, the poster boy for this current spate of violence:
A wayward lad who liked to flaunt an AK-47 as his signature weapon of protest? Would the Mahatma have endorsed this senseless stone pelting? The answer is a resounding no. By invoking Gandhi to lend credibility to a violent, fundamentalist movement, they have insulted his legacy.
The statement avers: “We have watched with grave foreboding as Kashmir has descended into turmoil … Nearly 100 people have died ... Yet there has been no accountability thus far.”
Wrong. Accountability in a democracy is not a one-way street with the entire onus on the government; citizens too have a duty. By resorting to stone pelting at the drop of a hat, Kashmiri Muslims have demonstrated a dereliction of duty. Accountability also begets another question: Who is accountable for the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits?
Blaming militants and Pakistan cannot absolve the majority community. What happened in Kashmir could not have occurred without the tacit compliance of the majority and so, despite their protestations, Muslims must bear the brunt of the blame.
Prior to 1990, the Army presence was minimal. Only when there was a total collapse of law and order was it deployed. The Army stands in Kashmir not as a brute occupying force out to suppress dissent but as a legitimate arm of a democratic government mandated to enforce the rule of law in a terrorist-infested jungle.
Overall, the Kashmiri Muslims have demonstrated a lack of accountability. Any government worth its name cannot allow crimes against humanity to go unanswered or rampant lawlessness to go unchallenged. The Kashmiri Muslims are totally responsible for a quagmire of their own making.
The statement attempts to cast the government as a callous ogre by sympathising with families “many of whose children have even lost vision”. While I empathise with the parents, there is a serious ethical conundrum. What were 14-year-olds doing in a violent demonstration? Were they there on their own volition? If so, where were their parents? Or were they used by unscrupulous agitators as a shield to compromise the security forces?
According to the UN, recruitment of children in combat is one of the six grave violations against children: “Human rights law declares 18 as the minimum legal age for recruitment and use of children in hostilities. Recruiting and using children under the age of 15 … is defined as a war crime by the International Criminal Court.” So, here you have a movement that has no qualms exploiting children in violation of international law. Can we come to terms with such depravity? To confer martyrdom on militants like Wani and imbue violent protests with validity is to declare that violence is acceptable in dissent.
In moral terms, the ethnic cleansing of the Pandits is so humongous that it reduces to irrelevance the little validity the separatists have and transcends the so-called Army atrocities. To ignore this moral crime and clamour for an unconditional compromise is to destroy the credibility of our secular democracy.
Kashmiris are suffering from an identity crisis wherein a small but vocal group is inciting them to focus on their immediate past and align themselves with an upstart nation, Pakistan, forsaking age-old tradition that celebrates Kashmiryaat and binds them culturally to India. To make peace with separatists is to negate both the cultural integrity and constitutional sovereignty of India.
What is at stake in Kashmir is a moral principle, our secular credentials, cultural integrity and constitutional sovereignty. These prominent personalities are saying we should sacrifice our values to appease a tantrum-throwing segment of our population; in other words, we should burn our Constitution, close down our Parliament, disband our Army and allow anarchy to set in to earn the goodwill of Kashmiri Muslims.
That unfortunately is a choice we cannot entertain.