A non-violent agitator takes on the government with a sustained campaign. The nation takes to the streets, the government is flustered, opens a dialog and then largely capitulates to the campaigner’s demands.
That sums up Anna Hazare’s months-long push to get the government to agree to a strong Lokpal, or ombudsman, bill, which now is about to come before Parliament, even though the government and “Team Anna” still have major differences.
 |
In summer of 2010, stone-pelting youths
took the Srinagar’s streets, chanting
slogans demanding freedom. |
But such a story line is only a distant hope for Yasin Malik, the leader of the Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front.
“The Indian state is so strong and powerful. I have taken the path of non-violent protest for so many years now. But nobody is interested in talking to me,” he told India Real Time at a conference organized by the Delhi-based think-tank, the Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation and a Pakistani think-tank, the Jinnah Institute.
In the tumultuous summer in 2010, stone-pelting youths took the Srinagar’s streets with the chant “Hamein kya chahiye” – “what is it that we want?” – and the answer “Azaadi!” – freedom!
But this year, an eerie calm has pervaded the streets as domestic tourists travelled to Kashmir in record numbers. The situation was deemed sufficiently calm that Chief Minister Omar Abdullah sought to address the very sensitive and complex long-pending issue of the removal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act from the state.
To many, it has been viewed as a sign of a peaceful new era. But to some in Kashmir, including Mr. Malik, it is more a sign that Kashmir has not been “solved” but has simply slipped down the priority list of the Indian government’s major problems, replaced by the likes of Mr. Hazare. He also sees a similarly dismissive attitude in Pakistan as it tries to improve relations with India.
“Both India and Pakistan have frozen Kashmir,” Mr. Malik said, speaking to IRT on the margins of a conference.
He may not be far wrong. In recent years, Kashmir has lost its position in India’s centre-stage in more ways than one. Prior to the Mumbai attacks of 2008, the Kashmir dispute as well as terrorism were always on top of any India-Pakistan agenda, but after Mumbai, the need for Pakistan to end terrorism directed at India has become dominant.
Domestically too, the Congress party-led United Progressive Alliance’s perceived weakness and its myriad scandals have not only dented the UPA’s image but allowed people like Anna Hazare to fill the credibility vacuum.
In Pakistan too, as relations with the U.S. and with Afghanistan plunge downward, Kashmir-specific attention seems to have dipped. Political parties make perfunctory reference to resolving Kashmir before embarking on any activity with India, as was evident when Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (N) party recently made noises about Kashmir on the question of Pakistan giving most favored nation status to India.
But the party quickly fell in line, because it favors improved relations with India. It was lost on no one that improved trade with India has several takers inside Pakistan, across the political spectrum, and that these lobbies did not want it held hostage to the Kashmir issue.
In his conversation with IRT, Yasin Malik refused to talk about the nature of a possible compromise between India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir, only insisting that the beginning of a real dialogue between honorable interlocutors will lead to a solution that will be acceptable to both sides.
Meanwhile, Mirwaiz Omer Farooq of the Hurriyat Conference, addressing a seminar in Kashmir a couple of weeks ago, bemoaned how even western countries, whether the European Union, the U.S. or U.K., preferred to now focus on economic issues rather than human rights violations.
With Mr. Hazare dominating newspaper and television space for the best part of the last six months, Kashmiri separatist leaders say they are bitter about the Indian state’s virtual refusal in opening a dialogue with them. The federal government appointed three interlocutors to talk to all shades of Kashmiri opinion in an effort to gauge the depth of the problem, but all separatist groups spurned the initiative. That report is expected to come out in the next few weeks.
Instead, Kashmir has been preoccupied with a much less significant debate on whether to open bars and cinemas in the valley – hardly the stuff that the future will be decided over.
For the record, the issue has drawn much ire from the separatist leadership, but several Kashmiris — both Muslim and Hindu – have responded by pointing out that several bars and cinemas had existed before Pakistan-sponsored militancy began in 1989.
“Gujarat has banned the sale of alcohol since 1948, in deference to being the birth place of Mahatma Gandhi, but it has very high levels of consumption. We should end this hypocrisy,” said a Kashmiri analyst. But he added: “The question is not whether Kashmiris should be allowed to publicly drink or not drink, but what should be the relationship between Kashmiris and the rest of India. For that to happen, an honorable conversation on the future of Kashmir must begin as soon as possible.”
It might be tempting to say that if Kashmir is peaceful and the biggest thing the valley’s residents are worried about is whether they can get a beer, then that is real progress for one of the world’s most troubled regions.
Mr. Malik begs to differ.
He says this year’s calm in the Kashmir valley is a deceptive one, and that the simmering discontent beneath is bound to break out sooner than later.
“I have to face the anger of my boys who keep asking me, ‘Why should we stay quiet?’ ‘Why should we not use force?’” he said.
“I want to tell the Indian government: ‘Do you want these boys to become the Taliban?’ ‘Do you want the state to become radicalized?’ If not, you have to address our concerns. You have to talk to us about the nature of Kashmir’s relationship with India.”
