A different ballgame by separatists
Daanish Bin Nabi
After the arrival of two delegations to break ice in
Kashmir, all eyes were on the meet of Unified Separatist Leadership with
stakeholders, which took place last week. It was the second breather for the
leadership, the first was when they were allowed to sit together and talk,
which followed the block off incident by police earlier. The meet last week was
important as people were anxious about the future strategy that the leadership
was to adopt after receiving feedback from stakeholders. It was also important
because as an opportunity it offered a view of political maturity of people and
leadership. Overall the unease was more on whether hartals and calendar will
continue as it has
The opinion on hartal strategy adopted by separatist
leadership is varied. A lot of people have explicitly stated their opinions
supported with arguments, both in favour and against. It is the second most
important development, the political maturity, which needs some
rumination.
To arrive at any conclusion we may need to go by the recent
timeline, beginning from late 1980s. The armed rebellion in late 1980s put the
Kashmir dispute back in focus in an entirely different way. Although the voice
speaking for a permanent solution to Kashmir got louder, but the aggression led
to collateral damage that became impossible to compensate. In Kashmir, many
leaders were trying to find a more peaceful way or process without compromising
on their positions vis-à-vis settlement of the dispute. The paradigm shift,
from aggressive armed revolt to non-violent means – which includes the present
strategy of street protests and shutdowns – was also due to the cause getting
tangled into branded global terrorism. The 9/11 attacks on World Trade Center
in America further led to advance the paradigm shift to non-violent separatism
in Kashmir. However, the real game-changer was popular acceptance. Opinion of
people in Kashmir largely swayed in favor of separatism which promised respite
from bloodshed and violence till a solution is arrived at. Without popular
acceptance, separatism that we know today, could not have survived a week.
While separatist leadership has kept its side of the
promise, it is New Delhi that has been running away from responsibilities. At
first New Delhi was all in when talks and negotiation instead of speaking from
the barrel of gun was chosen by Kashmir’s leaders. Peaceful protests in the
changed paradigm were allowed and people in Kashmir saw it as a way forward.
Although there was no formal agreement or understanding how separatism was to
be dealt with, but at present there are many examples that clearly show that
New Delhi’s policy regarding dealing with militancy and separatism are not
different. Protests and uprisings since 2008 and how they were dealt with show that
excessive force is the only language New Delhi talks when it comes to settling
Kashmir dispute. Protestors have been killed like militants are; they are being
hunted, tortured and arrested. The most disturbing question that pro-India
politicians don’t dare to raise is whether AFSPA has been extended to be
applicable to people involved in unarmed street protests. There is no
distinction made by Indian armed forces, para-military and police between a
militant and a protestor. With the new
government at Centre that has stakes in state as well, the space for unarmed
protests has got shrunk, which makes the situation on ground like sitting on a
powder keg.
Meeting stakeholders
On November 8, leaders of Hurriyat conglomerate and other
separatist groups, listened to different stakeholders – people of Kashmir
representing different bodies. The meeting was held at the residence of
Hurriyat (G) Chairman Syed Ali Geelani. Some 500 people had reached the place
and were inside witnessing what the leaders and stakeholders had to say. There
was a healthy mix of conversations, viewpoints and arguments. That makes the
approach of Unified Separatist Leadership not only acceptable but raises the
bar. If New Delhi has been running away from responsibilities and promises, the
separatist leadership has taken the true democratic course, making it more open
and transparent by talking to stakeholders, listening to them and carving the
future course.
In the bargain, the only thing for which credit goes to New
Delhi is that it allowed the leaders to talk among themselves and also with the
representatives of different bodies. It is the political maturity that has led
to this event of great importance. Now, the decision is not unilateral and
given by separatists without any consideration to the people. It has the
popular vote, which is a big thing. It challenges the narrative that protests
and hartals are mere manipulations by few.
In contemporary politics, applied democracy in states can be
seen in two forms – the Representative and the Direct. In states and political
constituencies where it is impossible for people to come at one place and
decide upon the policies it is the representative democracy or indirect
democracy. In smaller constituencies where people directly are involved in
policy making it is direct democracy, example includes Switzerland.
The meet should open the eyes of those people who in theory
claim to be democratic and in practice prove otherwise and go lambasting
others. It is also an eye-opener to skeptics who are predisposed to
fault-finding in Kashmiris.
Feedback at
daanishnabi@gmail.com
Published in Rising Kashmir on 15 November 2016
