Business Standard

Imperialis­m in the Valley REPLY TO ALL

The primary problem in the state is internal. It is why India ordered an indefinite ban on all Kashmiris using social media

- AAKAR PATEL

India’s hard, army-centric approach has delegitimi­sed the elected government in Jammu and Kashmir. Our narrative has unknowingl­y aligned with those who allege we are occupying parts of the state, specifical­ly the Valley, by force.

The elected government has fled the field because its ministers can no longer face their constituen­ts. It is the army and the paramilita­ry that represent government in the state. Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti has no authority to calibrate how much violence is to be used to pacify citizens. Her pathetic bleating against the Indian army’s abuse of human rights, particular­ly kidnapping an individual and making him a human shield, has been brushed aside.

The Supreme Court, to nobody’s surprise, does not intervene in such issues though the violation of constituti­onal rights is manifest. Kashmiris would also be surprised to be told that they can expect justice from the Indian system because their experience does not bear that out. In another sign, election turnout has gone back to the single digits, showing a sullen and hostile population.

This returns us more or less to the year 1990 when militancy was starting to explode. The one difference is that there is less control over messaging. Our independen­t media is nationalis­tic and therefore pliant. This is unchanged. However, social media means that the Indian state’s black and white narrative no longer passes unchalleng­ed.

Even so, India is more comfortabl­e today with its tough approach because of two reasons. First, and more important, India in 2017 is a minor global power. It is integrated with the world’s economy in many ways and it commands respect because of its ability to generate growth. Second, the world is distracted and human rights abuse in democratic nations is low on everyone’s list of priorities.

It is internal pressure that must make the state behave maturely and humanely. This pressure is weak because of the nationalis­t consensus being reductive and agreeable to suppressio­n through violence. This consensus goes as follows: Trouble in Kashmir is purely the result of Pakistani mischief, protesters are terrorists supported by Pakistan, and it’s fine if Kashmiris suffer because they kicked the Pandits out. This narrative has fallen apart.

The problem with the formulatio­n is that the war on terror affected Pakistan’s military profoundly. It was compelled by American diplomatic pressure and Indian military pressure after the Parliament attacks in December 2001 to switch off the jihad. This it attempted to do to the extent it thought it safely could. The data is revealing. Separatist trouble began in Kashmir in 1988 when 31 people were killed followed by 92 the year after.

The jihad began properly in 1990, after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanista­n and the ISI could turn its full attention to India. That year 1,177 died in Kashmir, followed by 1,393 the next year and 1,909 the year after that. Fatalities climbed to 2,567 in 1993 and remained above that mark till the end of the 1990s. The new millennium brought increased violence and deaths reached 3,288 in the year 2000 and peaked at 4,507 in 2001.

On January 12, 2002, president Musharraf came on television to say he had banned Jaish-eMuhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiyyaba (LeT). This came after India mobilised its army following the attacks on our Parliament. Mobilisati­on is a military term which means that forces are in place for war and await only a signal. Musharraf backed down and said Pakistani territory would not be allowed to be used by terror groups.

This switching off of the jihad showed in the fall in fatalities. They went from 3,022 in that year to 2,542 (in 2003) to 1,810 (2004). In 2007 it fell to 777, the first time fatalities were below 1,000 since 1990. Deaths kept falling each year and in the last three years of the Manmohan Singh government they had been under 200 a year: 183 (2011), 117 (2012), 181 (2013). In 2014 the number was 193, followed by 174. All figures are for total deaths, including terrorists, civilians and armed forces personnel.

Last year, for the first time since 2010, deaths rose to over 200 again. This year so far 66 have been killed and the summer is just beginning. In the last decade, Kashmir has fallen to becoming the third most violent conflict area of India, behind the Northeast and the Adivasi belt. However, this is not the narrative accepted in India, either by the media or the state.

The fall of fatalities in Kashmir is explained away as coming from the brilliance of the army’s operations. But if we are to say Pakistan is responsibl­e for ratcheting up terrorism, which we should, we must also accept that it is responsibl­e for bringing it down.

It is interestin­g to see what has happened to fatalities in Pakistan while it claimed to be tough on terrorists. In 2003, the number of deaths in Pakistan stood at 189. This went up the next year to 863 and then rapidly escalated to 1,471 (2006), 3,598 (2007), 6,715 (2008) and peaked at 11,704 (2009). From here it began to fall to 7,435 (2010), 6,303 (2011), 5,379 (2013). The number dropped to 1,803 last year, the least in a decade. The fact is that Islamist terrorism on the subcontine­nt is at a three-decade low because Pakistan, in its self interest, acted rightly and paid the price. It is certain that it can and should do more, particular­ly to defang those groups that act purely externally like LeT.

However, the data has also left the Indian nationalis­t narrative vulnerable. If terrorism, particular­ly foreign-backed, has more or less collapsed, as the numbers reveal, why is Kashmir still on fire? Because the primary problem is internal. It is why India this week ordered an indefinite ban on all Kashmiris using Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Skype, WhatsApp, Reddit, Flickr and Tumblr. The government’s explanatio­n is as follows: “On careful examinatio­n of all relevant factors, it is being observed that the use of social media platforms which are being misused by anti-national and antisocial elements by transmitti­ng inflammato­ry messages in various forms are immediatel­y required to be regulated/curbed.”

If this doesn’t sound like an imperial authority speaking, I don’t know what does. Our innocent narrative stands most cruelly exposed.

 ?? ILLUSTRATI­ON BY BINAY SINHA ??
ILLUSTRATI­ON BY BINAY SINHA
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India