Kashmir protests: Beyond the obvious

Abhishek Singh Samant If the protests in Jammu and Kashmir in the recent past are anything to go by, it seems that the duality extends much beyond the capitals (the state has two capitals for two seasons) and transcends into the way a certain section expresses its discretion in choosing issues to protest. As Kashmir is rocked by protests every other day on every conceivable issue, one is bound to ponder over the justification, or otherwise, of these acts. Right from the Amarnath Land dispute to this year’s rape and murder of two girls allegedly by the security forces in Shopian, there have been incidents that have resulted in reactions bordering on the extreme, which at times are not even remotely linked to the issue. Some incidents that triggered protests If we look at the past one year there have been instances which have evoked almost unwarranted reactions (here, unwarranted implies only to the way the campaign is conducted and its shrill pitch, not the issue of protest). Last year’s Amarnath Land row triggered state-wide protests and led to a standoff between the Valley and Jammu. This year the rape and murder of two girls in Shopian, allegedly by the security forces, saw strikes and shutdown in the Valley resulting in the killings of several people. Most recently, the killing of a youth in the Valley, which was again attributed to security forces, witnessed the same cycle of mindless violence, strikes and shutdown. Ivestigations, however, bared the truth and revealed that the youth’s murder was the result of a love triangle. Protests: Justified or not At a macro level no one can question the reasons for protests. In fact, any sensible person and a proud Indian would support it. After all, don’t we – as a democracy, and that too the largest in the world – have the right to protest injustices and atrocities? Haven’t there been protests in other parts of the country time and again over the injustices and atrocities (real and alleged) committed by the state? So, what is it that raises questions about the justification of recent protests in Jammu and Kashmir? Well, to put it very blatantly, the agitators protested against everything except what they professed or pretended to, i.e. to protest over their grievances. The issue of killing and rape became a mere shield, at best, used by a handful of people to propound their vicious viewpoints and to whip up public anger. The protestors, who took to the streets for the sake of justice for the victims, chanted "azadi" or freedom. It is hard to imagine a case where a person who has been raped, or suffered at the hands of the authorities, to demand freedom! There have been rapes and there have been protests. But unlike those in the Valley, the agitators demanded action against the guilty. Even during the Godhra riots, where hundreds of innocent Muslims were killed in a not-so-concealed display of state-sponsored atrocities, never ever was there a single call for freedom. After all, the protests are meant for the redressal of the issue which has caused discontent among the people, and not a coercive tool to achieve selfish goals in the name of justice for people. Double standards in protests Recently, PDP leader Mehbooba Mufti, while referring to the rapes in Shopian, said that had there been a rape in any other part of the country, there would have been candlelight vigils across the nation but nothing of that sort happened for the incidents in the state. I fully agree with Ms Mufti. But it must also be noted that the vigils in other parts of the country would not have been limited only to cases where the government or the authorities were in the dock. For every candlelight march for a victim of state atrocity, there would have been an assembly for policemen or security personnel killed by militants and terrorists. Why is it that emotions are stirred only when the forces commit some crime and not when terrorists kill innocent people? Why is it that the likes of Syed Ali Shah Gilani, Shabbir Shah and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, who condemn any mistake by the authorities at the drop of a hat and take to streets, fail to show the same zeal against the brutality committed by the terrorists? The double standards were evident when a child’s murder by the militants failed to evoke any protests on part of the separatists thus forcing Omar Abdullah to say that why are the protestors quiet now? The Gilanis and the Mirwaizs claim to stand for the right of the Kashmiris. If that is really the case why do they go dormant when a Kashmiri is killed by militants? This double standard seriously raises questions about the genuineness of their claims, as well as protests. Psychology and motives behind ‘selective’ protests With Kashmir returning to normalcy (as was evident in the recent Assembly and Lok Sabha polls) and secessionist voices being snubbed, the flag-bearers of the separatist movement (read Hurriyat) are suffering from an identity crisis as the very basis of their existence seems as outdated as a circus in modern times. Faced with the prospect of being confined to an archival status and desperate to maintain its relevance to the people, the Hurriyat has found refuge in stoking passions. And what better way than to protest against the state, because no matter what the provocation, the authorities will act within the laws. Same cannot be said about the militants. No one knows better the consequence of being in the bad books of militants than the suave Mirwaiz (his father was gunned down by the militants). So it is better and safe to protest against the government as it will ensure that you remain in people’s mind and at the same time face no threat to your life. The separatists may argue that their protests were genuine and cite the active participation of People’s Democratic Party (PDP) – a mainstream political group - as a proof. However, the role and action of PDP was guided by its own political consideration. The party’s hyperactive stand during the Amarnath Land transfer case should be seen in the backdrop of the fact that the Assembly Elections were just months away when the controversy broke out. By criticising the land transfer, PDP’s sole motive was to evoke passions among the people which in turn would translate into votes in the polls. If we look at the party’s recent stand in the tirade against the government, it becomes quite clear that the move was again inspired by narrow political goals. Though apparently adopting a high moral ground of standing for the rights of the people, the party’s real motive was to weaken the state government and portray the newly appointed Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah, as inept thus paving the way for its revival in the state. Protests are welcome in a democracy and no crime committed by the state should go unpunished. But at the same time the protestors should be made aware in no uncertain terms that rights and duties go hand-in-hand in a democracy. If they have rights, they also have duties. Further, they cannot demand action from the state while simultaneously demanding secession. How can you demand justice from the very state, whose Constitution you don’t recognise and term it as a foreign country? It is high time that the separatists shed their double standards and stand for what they profess – the right of Kashmiri people.