23rd February, 2016
Chennai, Tamil Nadu
A note on Jammu and
Kashmir: My home state has not seen
as much violence and/ or bloodshed as the Kashmiris have. The troubles that mar
the northernmost state gradually abate in magnitude as we head southwards. But,
each time we read about an attack on the Kashmiris by militants or insurgents,
and each time an Indian soldier lays down his life to protect them and all of
India we are deeply pained, even though we are miles away and safe from the
bullets and shells that massacre the Kashmiris. We may not feel the pain they
face in the physical sense, but our minds are deeply affected by them.
We are all well aware how J&K came to be a part of India. The
circumstances which prevailed during the formation of India prompted the ruler
of J&K to accede to the Dominion of India, in order to protect his state
from the invaders who had come from across the border. However, autonomy of
J&K was ensured by the Indian Government in the instrument of accession and
it continues to be effective to this day to a great degree, despite a lot of
water having flown under the bridge since its accession. The UN later declared
that the decision on whether J&K should be a part of India or it neighbour
Pakistan would be arrived at via plebiscite, which is a democratic means to
self- determination.
Today, the noise, the frequent protests, terror attacks and many
unconstitutional/ unlawful events are transpiring because some elements believe
that the Indian Government is blocking plebiscite in J&K. I recently
attended a talk by a Kashmiri, who has lived there most of his life and
governed the state as its Chief Minister and his version of this issue was to
the contrary. Omar Abdullah explained in simple words why a plebiscite is
difficult now (and how it was never made possible earlier). The preconditions
laid down by the UN to conduct a plebiscite were- one, withdrawal of Pakistani
forces and Pakistani nationals from J&K and two, subsequent withdrawal of
Indian forces from J&K. These were the conditions to be met for the
plebiscite to be conducted. Although India accepted to these preconditions,
Pakistan did not. The presence of Pakistani forces (military and non- military)
continued, thus ruling out the abatement of Indian troops on ground.
Even today, insurgents and militants from across the borders are
still on the soil of J&K. The withdrawal or even reduction of Indian army
cannot happen with the presence of these elements. Four wars have been fought
between the two countries over J&K and large numbers of Indian soldiers
have become martyrs in these wars and they continue to lay down their lives in
so many attacks that continue to occur even to this day. Wars and terror
attacks have altered the dynamics between the two nations, including the
practicality of implementing a plebiscite, among others issues. So, this calls
for a relook into the terms of the referendum, from what was laid down earlier
by the UN.
Also, J&K state was populated predominantly by a certain
community, but large numbers of people from other communities were also living
and continue to live there. If the people choose to merge with Pakistan, say,
then there will be a reprisal of the effects of partition (if not of the same
magnitude) where the majority community will be forced to drive out the rest,
purely because the laws of Pakistan forbid practice of other faiths on its
soil. If J&K continues to remain with India, then these other communities
can continue to live and carry out their lives alongside the majority
community, as India is a secular state. Now, the plight of so many members of so
many different communities must be factored into while deciding the way
forward. In the event of a plebiscite, the district to south of J&K may
want to join Pakistan, while a north-western districts may want to continue
with India, making it a geographical impossibility and a complex mix and match
situation to arrive at a final settlement, leading to further discontentment
and even violence (god forbid).
India has always acknowledged the autonomy of J&K. Although
there are difficulties in implementing the UN resolution of the 40s, for
reason(s) mentioned above, a relook can never be ruled out. A mutual acceptance
of any solution that is explored by both countries alone can remove a stalemate
and make positive progress towards a solution. Reaching a common ground by both
the nations is vital. The Governments of both these nations have always
endeavoured for this and today, the renewal of talks by various agencies and
ministries of the Government are giving a renewed confidence.
Blocking infiltration of militants into J&K and other parts of
India, curbing funding for terror activities perpetrated on the Indian soil,
understanding the needs of the people of J&K, exploring multiple options
for a peaceful solution and zeroing in on the most beneficial option is the way
forward. Now, I am no expert on this issue, and there may be other factors that
may be require a serious look. I am confident that there are people on both
sides of the border who are best equipped to solve the problem.
Protests in Jawaharlal Nehru University: Now, while the Governments of the two nations are in
discussion, with the Pakistani premier asking his countrymen to refrain from
damaging the ongoing peace process, while the Indian ministers are trying hard
to reach out to their counterparts in every conventional and unconventional way
and while many separatist groups have decided to keep faith in these
efforts, there continues to be discontentment among people from
J&K, probably over the pace at which the whole affair is progressing and
also at the constant ups and downs that have become characteristic to it. It is
thus natural for them to raise slogans in protest, to vent their displeasure.
Protests help appeals, which are usually unheard or ignored, to fall into the
ears of those concerned. This may be why the students at JNU began such a
protest, so as to make their demands for Kashmir’s independence be heard. But,
in their protest, they used a route which hurt the sentiments of many others.
Some students of JNU decided to orchestrate their displeasure by invoking the
name of a certain Kashmiri who was declared a terrorist by the Indian courts of
law and sentenced to death by it. The slogans that were shouted on that day at
JNU glorified this terrorist and told (although some may prefer the word
‘threatened’) India that many similar men will emerge from each household in
Kashmir to fight for its cause and they vow to disintegrate India.
I do not want to get into the humanity and/or human rights aspects
of a death sentence, as I have even lesser authority on that subject. I am
confident that there are well read people who are doing something about that in
a constitutional manner. The fact of the matter is that the terrorist and his
associates were part of an attack in 2001 on the Parliament of India. People
were killed in the attack and lives of many (including some of our elected
representatives) were under threat. Although, it is natural for Kashmiris to
view the terrorist and his associates as heroes, due to their position on
liberating J&K, they must however take into consideration the
unconstitutional methods that were employed in the due process and how a
billion other Indians may react to it.
In my opinion a fight for the right to self-determination and the
future of J&K, do not require invoking names of certain people (especially
those deemed terrorists by Law). If nothing else, it’s a sensitive subject that
must be handled with caution, lest is hurt someone else’s sentiments. If the Kashmiris
really want their voices to be heard and their demands be met, they must try
and avoid making such remarks which prove counter-productive to their cause.
The students can take a more democratic route and affiliate with parties which
are fighting for the cause already. The Hurriyat Conference is already doing
that and it has serious people who are taking lawful steps to air their
demands. Although they are deemed separatists, the Indian state has
acknowledged their position and is actively engaging with them for a peaceful
solution. The major political parties in J&K have people in them who are
serious about this issue and endeavour to cautiously balance the interests of
the people and the violence that is perpetrated in their land.
In JNU, as a consequence of the sloganeering and the events that
followed, the police arrested the student leader and now a case is pending
against him in court, which I am sure it will reach its logical and fair
conclusion. The arrest was called unlawful by the students of JNU and the whole
question of anti- nationalism and what actually is nationalism arose. Today,
the students who raised the slogans, which the police feel were seditious, are
contemplating to surrender before court. I always felt that union leaders were gutsier
and did not cry foul when courted arrest, well…
Protests in Hyderabad Central University: The other incident that has hogged so much of media space is
the suicide of a student of the Hyderabad University and how his death is
linked to him being from a lower class and to a certain MP whose letter to the
union HRD ministry and the subsequent replies to it. This student had a case
pending against him in connection to assaulting an ABVP activist on the
University campus. The court of law upheld the case and the judicial
proceedings were underway at the time of his death. As a consequence, he was
expelled from the university and the hostel, although he continued to protest
on the campus. His suicide and the circumstances surrounding it are being
investigated by police and the courts, and I hope justice is delivered and the
matter is brought to its conclusion fast, if not for anything else, to bring
relief to an aggrieved mother who has lost her son. But the facts remain grim;
this student had done the exact same thing as those students of JNU, when he
empathised with the hanging of yet another convict, associated with terror
attacks in Mumbai in 1993 which killed many and subsequently was sentenced to
death by the court of law. The ABVP among others had raised objections to this.
Now, the supporters of the hanging have as much right as the dissenters of it
to air their views. Imagine if this student had lived and was proved innocent
of his charges by the court. He could’ve fought a legitimate battle thereafter.
The case of one student from HCU sympathising with the hanging of
a convict and another case where the students of JNU want to protest for a
cause by invoking the name of another terrorist has a similarity- in each case
the convicts were declared as convicts not by the ruling of a Government, but
by the court of Law after thorough investigation, after several appeals to
higher courts and pleading clemency. This is the very Law which provides us
with the Right to freedom of speech and expression (subject to reasonable
restrictions), the very law that they seek recourse under in the event of
murders, robberies and among so many others crimes and the very law under which
they seek bail and protection. So, if these students have the audacity to
question the court of Law, then I really wonder what other institution they
respect. I can understand dissent against Government, but is the dissent
against a court judgement justified? I am sure the human rights violation card
will be invoked here, but why does human rights have to be remembered only when
terrorists are being sentenced to death. Should not the students and all human
rights activists instead call for a systematic relook and a research into the
concept of death sentence through constitutional routes? After all our
constitution is organic and has metamorphosed since its ratification, thus
providing room for change.
The timing of these incidents is astonishing. First, I do not see
merit in the suicide case of the HCU student being brought to mainstream news.
Politicising a death, which is being investigated and from which no conclusions
have been drawn yet and creating an atmosphere to pit one caste against the
rest is in itself improper, and in this case unfounded. Second, it is
suspicious how JNU’s Kashmir struggle and the subsequent slogans are being
raised only on anniversaries of dead terrorists. Should not their struggle for
J&K’s liberation be continuous? I wonder what would’ve been the fate of the
freedom movement of India if our forefathers had decided to fight for freedom
only on birth and death anniversaries of select dear departed.
Why the protests? From the turn of
events, I feel that a smear campaign is afoot against the incumbent Government
by forces which are unable to come to terms with the victory of this
Government. But let me ask them- Why did you/ me (or your/ my country) vote
such a Government to power? So, are you (me) wrong? Are the people of your (my)
country wrong in voting such a Government to power? If we cannot digest the
fact that the Government in power is in power, then we need to bear with them
till the next general elections. That’s the hard truth in a democracy, the
democracy that each of us are proud about and appears to have taken for
granted. This seems too much like a smear campaign against the Government with
the sole goal to block the Budget session of Parliament starting today. First,
it was the Lalit Modi issue, to which the Minister of External Affairs was
wrongly linked to and for which the Parliament session was blocked, with the
Opposition running away (walking out) from debate and discussion. Next, it was
the DDCA row against the Minister of Finance, where again the opposition had no
legs to stand on and the matters, including the defamation suit filed by the
minister, are now in court. This time I am sure it will be the HCU and JNU
issues that will be used to stall proceedings of the Parliament.
Would any Government, left or right, have remained a silent
spectator when such slogans are being raised? I ask a counter question. Should
any Government, left or right in its leanings, take no action if such a speech
or sloganeering is made? Will the same people who are protesting against the
Government today, be happy if this or any other Government had left the
students to go ahead with their sloganeering against the nation? Haven’t we
complained enough between 2004 and 2014 because the Government and its leaders
were too quiet on major issues that burned our nation then? It’s time to
introspect on whether what we protest for is just or not? The matters are
clearly political. These incidents have been capitalised (or were hatched to be
capitalised?) in order to disrupt the upcoming Parliament session.
Just like how people in my country have fear of not being heard,
represented and a now the fear of not having the freedom of speaking what they
want to, I too have a fear- a fear where development of my country is stalled
by opposition parties under false pretexts and as a consequence of which the
poor get poorer, working class gets poorer and we all dive into an age of
darkness, economically and socially speaking. Our demands from the Government
must be for reforms and not for what is already guaranteed under the
constitution. If we feel our civil liberties and fundamental rights are
violated and/ or that we have been deprived of them, then we have a solid
judiciary in place from where we can get the recourse.
In conclusion I feel that the bitter and scathing attacks on
Government by various forces are a pretext to hinder growth, growth which we
have not seen in many years and which we hope and pray becomes a reality. The
Government too has faltered in handling these situations in a diplomacy that it
demands and has lost precious time in the parliament, falling victim to the opposition’s
rants, however well-grounded or unfounded they may be. Allegations and protests
can go on, but their repercussions on the people of India at large must be
thought about. We must be thankful for having a judiciary in place which is
largely independent in its actions and however slow it is in its functioning,
history says that it is fair in the end. Negative propaganda may win opposition
elections in the future, but what else can it do?