Violence in J&K and democratic rights

By Asghar Ali Engineer

THE RECENT massacre of Sikhs has once again brought the Kashmir issue into focus. It is suspected that the Lashkar-e-Taiba carried out this massacre. The militants deny any role in the killing of 35 Sikhs and allege that the Army or paramilitary forces were behind it, which is hardly convincing. These allegations and counter-allegations do not matter to the victims.

All sections of society have condemned the massacre in no uncertain terms. Apart from others, all Muslim leaders who matter have denounced the ghastly act. The Naib-Imam, Abdullah Bukhari, called it an inhuman act and said it was aimed at disturbing communal harmony. He also said that no religion permitted killing of innocent people. The working chief of the Jamat-e-Islami, Maulana Jalaluddin Umri, also denounced the massacre and urged the Government to punish the guilty.

The U.S. President, Mr. Bill Clinton, in his interview to the ABC Network, said ``I believe that there are elements within the Pakistani Government that have supported those who engage in violence in Kashmir.'' It is quite likely that the militants carried out this massacre to put the Kashmir issue in the forefront during the Clinton visit. Whatever the purpose, such acts cannot be condoned, even if the cause be just. Unless we learn to consider human life - any life for that matter - sacred no cause is worth supporting. After all why do we carry out any struggle? In order that human life can flourish.

Violence cannot solve any problem, it only aggravates it. Violence appears justified in certain circumstances to certain people. But those who take a long term view and are aware of the consequences will never advocate its use, much less such indiscriminate use. Violence has no place in any society, much less in a democratic one. Here Gandhiji remains most relevant. His philosophy of non-violence, whatever its source of inspiration, is not only relevant but also morally highly desirable. Violence is democracy's very anti-thesis. It is surprising that those supposedly fighting for the rights of the people of Kashmir have no respect for the rights of others. Otherwise, how could they have killed innocent Sikhs. It is not happening in Kashmir alone; it is a worldwide phenomenon. The world over, violence is being used indiscriminately for securing ``democratic rights''. We can cite several examples, Bosnia for instance. Thousands were massacred in Bosnia, hundreds of women were raped. Why? The Serbs wanted to secure their own rights.

The religious right perpetrates violence of the worst kind, and that in the name of religion. It is an insult to religion to maintain - as the religious right always does - that violence is permissible to establish one's own religious rights. In the U.S., the religious right is known to use violence most indiscriminately to force on people what it calls its doctrine of being ``pro-life''. They extinguish life to promote their doctrine of promoting life! Many ``pro-choice'' people have been massacred in the U.S. by self-confessed ``pro-life'' people. So many nurses and doctors performing abortions have been killed, and so many institutions where abortions are performed have been set afire in the U.S. The Khalistanis in Punjab also resorted to violence most indiscriminately for several years. And all this to promote a state based on the Sikh faith.

And these rightist bigots kill more people of their own religious tradition that those from rival faiths. More Sikhs than Hindus were killed in Punjab by Khalistanis. In Kashmir too, more Muslims have been killed than Pandits. Violence promotes not only suspicion of the extreme kind, it also engenders extreme intolerance in the ranks of its advocates. On the one hand, they suspect every other person of being an enemy agent and, on the other, any differing opinion is considered heresy punishable only by death. Thus, liberal Sikhs were the most hated enemies of the Khalistani Sikhs and liberal Muslims in Kashmir of ``Jihadi'' militants.

In certain cases, violence may be inspired by years of persecution by a dominant section of society and its use may appear justified in a certain phase of the struggle. But soon violence generates its own dynamics and acquires a self- sustaining quality. It is easy to begin violence but near- impossible to end it. Violence is a kind of power and those who take to arms and are hardly ever ready to give them up. They will find one or the other excuse to perpetrate violence unless some greater power intervenes. In Serbia and Kosovo, violence could be contained only after the intervention of the NATO.

Violence, even if it began as liberative, not only becomes repressive soon but also leads to another equally-despicable consequence: ethnic cleansing. The Bodo extremists in Assam want to create Bodoland and want to cleanse the area of all non-Bodos. They have killed so many Assamese Muslims and others in their area. The extremist Sikhs tried to kill several innocent Hindus in Punjab to cleanse the area of all non- Sikhs. Similarly, the Kashmiri militants are seeking to eliminate all Hindus and Sikhs so that Kashmir will be monopolised by the Kashmiris.

As peaceful opposition is an essential part of democracy, diversity and plurality are its integral parts as well. Democracy raises certain tensions in a diverse and pluralist setup. Regional identity is threatened by migration. Many rightist forces raise the slogan of ``sons of the soil'' and want to stop migration or reduce the number of those already settled in an area. Thus, Article 370 in case of Kashmir has become a bone of contention. The article was inserted in the Constitution to respect the autonomy of Kashmir and to safeguard its identity. However, the contents of Article 370 were diluted (almost out of existence) on the one hand, and, the Kashmiri militants are out to destroy its internal plurality, on the other, by expelling Pandits or killing Sikhs.

This is indeed a dilemma of democracy, which cannot be easily resolved and is bound to create social tensions between the principles of diversity and regional identity. But such tensions have to be resolved through democratic means. However, it is easier said than done. It is a most delicate task which requires honesty and integrity, on the one hand, and extreme caution and statesmanship, on the other. Unfortunately, populist politics has its own compulsions and no politician - with hardly any honourable exception these days - displays these qualities. On the contrary, they aggravate social tensions by playing popular politics. And such opportunism leads to violence. Punjab and Kashmir are obvious examples of tensions leading to violence being provoked by the then ruling party. So much bloodshed could have been avoided if the social tensions had been managed in a statesmanlike manner.

The country's integrity depends on maintaining diversity and pluralism, which, however, is always resented by the religious right. It pushes for uniformity, which ultimately leads to ethnic cleansing and to an authoritarian culture. And authoritarianism, which is not permanently sustainable in this age of democracy, ultimately leads to the break up of a country. Uniformity, thus, is the enemy of a country's unity rather than its base, as the rightist forces often tend to believe. Pakistan broke up in 1971 because West Pakistan was intolerant of its own internal diversity. Strengthening of diversity not only leads to democratic governance but also strengthens unity and integrity.

Those who stand for the autonomy of Kashmir should do everything possible to promote its internal diversity. They should not try to polarise society between Muslims and non-Muslims and Kashmiris and non-Kashmiris within the State. It will harm their own cause. They should welcome inter- regional autonomy within the State, i.e. the autonomy of Jammu and Ladakh.

Within Muslims of Kashmir too there is religious as well as regional diversity, between Shias and Sunnis (Shias of Kargil and Sunnis of the valley) and cultural differences between the Muslims of Jammu and the Muslims of the Valley.

There is no pure Kashmiri Muslim identity either. In fact, there is no escape from diversity in any region of any State. The Hurriyat - an umbrella organisation - itself is so diverse. Thus, an amicable solution in Kashmir is possible only when violence is given up and dialogue begins.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : The victorious Mr. Putin
Next     : The Govt.'s wage bill