Melange of discontents: People of Kashmir have been at the receiving end for years now

The condemnable doing in of three policemen last month in Srinagar is a testament to the punctuated continuation of the social welter in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) — often commonly titled as Kashmir.

When harbingers of relative stability to the strife-torn state are seemingly apparent — notwithstanding the fleeting political deadlock surrounding the succession to former Chief Minister, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, and its eventual resolution with his daughter, Mehbooba Mufti, appointed to her late father’s designation as the new chief minister of the PDP-BJP coalition government in the state — the spurt of violence has tended to relegate the political narrative of the state to palpable queasiness. Additionally, it bespeaks of the state still being at the dialectical crossroads of self-determination, psychological integration with the rest of India, and the national political process.

The killings are a pointer to simultaneously contradictory trends: the administration of the state is possibly doing a relatively better job in combating violence and influencing more extremists to give up violence and hate and to enlist themselves with the constitutional politics of the state and by extension of the country and look forward to contribute to the socio-economic arena of their society; the extremist groups still feed on the parallel dissatisfaction of a social omnibus comprised of political high-handedness, maladministration, economic and educational regression, corruption, and incidents of violence meted out by the armed forces upon the populace — mistakenly or otherwise. 

As reported, the Hizbul Mujahideen, a terrorist outfit, had again succeeded in effecting its agenda of violence and hate towards individuals, represented as symbols of state machinery. Nevertheless, it is also, in a significant measure, a desperate attempt by the militants to give a rejoinder to the apparently successful measures by the state to curb unrest and to pursue and prosecute wrongdoers.    

In the narrative of turbulence in Kashmir, the involvement of Pakistan is an inherent factor. Even if that angle has occasionally been exaggerated than is merited, Pakistani culpability is beyond doubt. An obligatory attendant viewpoint is with regard to the opportunity presented to Pakistan to abet disturbances in the state. The principal reason lies in bad governance and corruption by many at the helm in the state. Added to it was the central government’s apparent smugness regarding the sensitive state and mistakes it had committed in trying to ensure who will be in power in Srinagar.

J&K acceded to the Indian union when the then Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession to democratic India amid quandary, manifested by attacks by Pathan tribesmen, organised, trained and sent into action by Pakistan, within three months of independence and formation of India and Pakistan in August, 1947, in an attempt to wrongly annex the former princely state into Pakistan. After Indian troops had freed about two-thirds of state from Pakistani intruders and had gallantly fought the first Indo-Pakistan war, most parts of the state, including the Kashmir valley, was incorporated into the Indian union. But, despite a stature which almost “dwarfed the Himalayas”, Prime Minister Nehru disinclined to allow the Indian armed forces to clear the entire state of the armed raiders; he encouraged a ceasefire. Even more glaringly, in a presumably overwhelming moment of idealism, he decided upon a “special status” for J&K. It was a recipe for future discontents, dilemmas and threats of secession; subsequently, they visited and still do visit upon the Indian government as ordeals in ample measure.  

The perennial socio-political disequilibrium in Kashmir is a direct consequence of the series of measures, taken through the passage of several decades, gone awry. The outer calm was a chimera, curtaining the steady build of flux among the Kashmiri people. Sheikh Abdullah, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, Khwaja Shamsuddin, GM Sadiq, Syed Mir Qasim, Farooq Abdullah, Ghulam Nabi Azad, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, Omar Abdullah and currently Mehbooba Mufti have ruled the state at various points in time. The first two, presiding over the task of laying the foundations of a bona fide government in Kashmir, turned out be controversial. Abdullah was associated more with vainglory and deceit, while Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad was held as corrupt and unscrupulous. Most of their successors, even if well-intentioned, failed to provide an efficient and corruption-free administration.   

The political volcano, which erupted in 1990 in the form of violent protests across the state and through persecution of the Kashmiri Pandit community, continues to scatter its embers. Initially supported enthusiastically by Pakistan, the movement reflecting Kashmiri disgruntlement in India was soon sought to be usurped by Pakistan, by its own affiliated terrorist groups. According to Majeed, a former Al Jihad militant, by the mid-1990s Pakistan-backed groups, particularly, the Hizbul  Mujahideen, sought to undermine Kashmir’s indigenous protest movement. On its part, the Indian armed forces created a separate front of former militants as an effective and adequate rejoinder to the malcontent Pakistan-backed groups. This phenomenon has gone on for the past two decades. It has witnessed tides and ebbs in varying degrees of advantage and its opposite for the Indian government. 

The people of Kashmir, tired of the violence and striving for normalcy in their livelihood, appear to be yearning for a long-desired equilibrium constituted of protection from prevailing violence, dignity, and economic development. For the past decade, successive governments in the state seem to be trying to inch towards that end amidst myriad challenges. Prime Minister Modi’s narrative for Kashmir exudes encompassing security measures and a widespread and balanced economic uplift. The state government is in compatibility with it. Beginning to successfully implement it is the surest way to heal festering wounds.

Kashmir is a melange of anger, agony, revolt, and intermittent peace. Human casualties, repression, acrimony, and outside instigation are almost quotidian features of the state. Surely, people are trying for a better future but they are hindered by harrowing occurrences like the killing of policemen. Good governance is the best antidote to diluting separatist tendencies and for a heartfelt integration of the Kashmiri people with the rest of the country. The government needs to decipher the desired sweet spot between economic growth, social stability, dignified livelihood, and security in Kashmir.  

The author analyses national and international affairs