TWO narratives are struggling to command attention and imagination in Kashmir. In the Vale, majority versus minority represents this. The minority is vociferous and has, through demonstrative acts of defiance against the State, pushed over the silent majority, which wants peace. This is an old story. Earlier, this role was played by the parties, which now we call mainstream. However, now the separatists have picked it up and play it with vigour.
This minority, call them self-proclaimed representatives of the whole population of Kashmiri Muslims, have perfected the art of giving a twist and turn to every word and event. Hurriyat Conference, the general term used for separatists of all hues, controls the narrative of defiance and of setting an anti-India agenda. Much credit for this should go to TV channels. Their cameras and jingoistic anchors, most of them have no sense of history, have given them a larger-than-life image.
The separatists are vociferous, despite being under “house arrest”. They draw their strength from few other groups and the anti-India pamphleteers, whose strings are pulled by external forces. Their narrative is that the Indian State is pushing them against the wall and depriving them of the right to a dignified life, besides denying them their political rights. This is broadcast so loudly that “soft” separatist groups like the ruling People’s Democratic Party find themselves in a corner. The PDP, which was elected on 25 seats in the Valley in the last assembly elections, has gone mute. After coming to power, the PDP has started losing its moorings.
Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, who saw no harm in “soft separatism,” now finds the Hurriyat in the limelight on issues concerning Kashmir. His government has allowed itself to be cornered on the issue of flood relief to the affected population. Also, there is no particular direction and there are splinter groups within the government. The PDP is at a loss while devising a strategy to retain its own position or to challenge the dominant narrative whenever any issue pertaining to Kashmir crops up — be it secessionism, militancy or communal and regional polarisation.
At present, everything is seen through the prism of Hindus versus Muslims, Kashmir versus Jammu and the narrators are separatists. The PDP leadership seems to be in endorsement mode, as if its existence as a regional party is dependent upon the separatists. Politics is all about a controlling narrative. It is waiting for the Central Government's package to rehabilitate itself politically as also to rediscover its own voice. The package, it is believed, would tilt the balance in favour of the non-separatist agenda. The damage its silence and its inability to do anything for the people in the past six months has caused appears to be irreversible. The package may salvage the position of India as a cash-flowing ATM, but nothing beyond it. The success of TV channels and Pakistan resurrecting the separatists on the India-Pakistan dialogue front by stressing on the centrality of Kashmir issue, may seem temporary. The way in which societal changes are taking place, what with waving of Pakistan flags and shouting pro-freedom slogans even on campuses of educational institutions, it seems unlikely that Kashmir would be able to return even to the pre-December 2014 situation, leave aside to the peace of the pre-1989 era. Whenever anything happens, fear is invoked and youngsters are instigated to protest on the streets. This section draws vicarious pleasure from acts of violence and bloodbath, because they are able to showcase their standing to their mentors, who watch youth fighting pitched battles with the police on the streets. In this narration, social media and those sections which straddle both sides of the spectrum play a big role.
It's a religious narrative with overtones of being anti-national and anti-other religion. The trigger invariably comes from some administrative decisions or grandstanding on certain sensitive issues. An instant brew is served to stoke communal passions with the clear objective to ensure liberated zones for radicalisation on the pattern of the Isis's march in Syria, Iraq and neighbouring Turkey. As it is, a Muslim becomes “more Muslim” because there is the fear of a Hindu becoming “more Hindu”. It is always interpreted by both sides as interference into religious affairs. The demonisation starts and, finally, the streets come alive to show that Kashmir is in trouble. It involves men and women of all ages because religion is a sensitive matter. The first casualty of the billowing smoke of fear is reason and rationality.
For example, a directive by the state High Court that the beef ban should be strictly implemented and the police should ensure that the law is upheld in letter and spirit, is suggestive of a legal angle, but at the same time the demographic sensitivities of this Muslim-majority state could have been taken care of in a better fashion. The state has moved on in the past 150 years, when this law was introduced in the state. The High Court could have dealt with the matter in a more sensitive manner. Today, in Kashmir slaughtering of bovine animals is a statement of defiance. The peace-loving population is equally concerned about religion.
What the High Court said is open to challenge. There are brilliant legal minds in Kashmir who can do so. A renowned lawyer, Zaffar Shah, observed that this law should be revisited. Legal battles should have been fought in the courts and not in the streets. These are fought on the streets because legal battles won't make the kind of sound and fury that would satisfy the appetite of TV channels or social media warriors. It is seen as a result of communal and regional polarisation. The Muslims versus rest is also seen through the global phenomenon in which the Isis is marching ahead with its own version of Islam. This is the global reality, but many voices in Kashmir are afraid that “Kashmir would become a nursery of such a mindset.”
This danger-laced narrative has suppressed the aspirational majority. This majority wants a normal life, peace and no pin-pricks and no violence, no street disturbances and no fear of the corrupt system. Many people don't like the narrators who instigate violence and their manner of protest because the individual and collective credibility of these people is in doubt. But this is voiced only in private conversations in a majority of places. Open criticism has its own pitfalls as the first set of narrators have assumed the role of mullahs of religion. The silent majority is scared and helpless. The two narratives do not criss-cross. One is pronounced and the other is to be felt. Kashmir is caught in a pincer, but there is no ray of hope descending on the Vale. Smiles and laughter have vanished. There is despondency in the air.
This minority, call them self-proclaimed representatives of the whole population of Kashmiri Muslims, have perfected the art of giving a twist and turn to every word and event. Hurriyat Conference, the general term used for separatists of all hues, controls the narrative of defiance and of setting an anti-India agenda. Much credit for this should go to TV channels. Their cameras and jingoistic anchors, most of them have no sense of history, have given them a larger-than-life image.
The separatists are vociferous, despite being under “house arrest”. They draw their strength from few other groups and the anti-India pamphleteers, whose strings are pulled by external forces. Their narrative is that the Indian State is pushing them against the wall and depriving them of the right to a dignified life, besides denying them their political rights. This is broadcast so loudly that “soft” separatist groups like the ruling People’s Democratic Party find themselves in a corner. The PDP, which was elected on 25 seats in the Valley in the last assembly elections, has gone mute. After coming to power, the PDP has started losing its moorings.
Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, who saw no harm in “soft separatism,” now finds the Hurriyat in the limelight on issues concerning Kashmir. His government has allowed itself to be cornered on the issue of flood relief to the affected population. Also, there is no particular direction and there are splinter groups within the government. The PDP is at a loss while devising a strategy to retain its own position or to challenge the dominant narrative whenever any issue pertaining to Kashmir crops up — be it secessionism, militancy or communal and regional polarisation.
At present, everything is seen through the prism of Hindus versus Muslims, Kashmir versus Jammu and the narrators are separatists. The PDP leadership seems to be in endorsement mode, as if its existence as a regional party is dependent upon the separatists. Politics is all about a controlling narrative. It is waiting for the Central Government's package to rehabilitate itself politically as also to rediscover its own voice. The package, it is believed, would tilt the balance in favour of the non-separatist agenda. The damage its silence and its inability to do anything for the people in the past six months has caused appears to be irreversible. The package may salvage the position of India as a cash-flowing ATM, but nothing beyond it. The success of TV channels and Pakistan resurrecting the separatists on the India-Pakistan dialogue front by stressing on the centrality of Kashmir issue, may seem temporary. The way in which societal changes are taking place, what with waving of Pakistan flags and shouting pro-freedom slogans even on campuses of educational institutions, it seems unlikely that Kashmir would be able to return even to the pre-December 2014 situation, leave aside to the peace of the pre-1989 era. Whenever anything happens, fear is invoked and youngsters are instigated to protest on the streets. This section draws vicarious pleasure from acts of violence and bloodbath, because they are able to showcase their standing to their mentors, who watch youth fighting pitched battles with the police on the streets. In this narration, social media and those sections which straddle both sides of the spectrum play a big role.
It's a religious narrative with overtones of being anti-national and anti-other religion. The trigger invariably comes from some administrative decisions or grandstanding on certain sensitive issues. An instant brew is served to stoke communal passions with the clear objective to ensure liberated zones for radicalisation on the pattern of the Isis's march in Syria, Iraq and neighbouring Turkey. As it is, a Muslim becomes “more Muslim” because there is the fear of a Hindu becoming “more Hindu”. It is always interpreted by both sides as interference into religious affairs. The demonisation starts and, finally, the streets come alive to show that Kashmir is in trouble. It involves men and women of all ages because religion is a sensitive matter. The first casualty of the billowing smoke of fear is reason and rationality.
For example, a directive by the state High Court that the beef ban should be strictly implemented and the police should ensure that the law is upheld in letter and spirit, is suggestive of a legal angle, but at the same time the demographic sensitivities of this Muslim-majority state could have been taken care of in a better fashion. The state has moved on in the past 150 years, when this law was introduced in the state. The High Court could have dealt with the matter in a more sensitive manner. Today, in Kashmir slaughtering of bovine animals is a statement of defiance. The peace-loving population is equally concerned about religion.
What the High Court said is open to challenge. There are brilliant legal minds in Kashmir who can do so. A renowned lawyer, Zaffar Shah, observed that this law should be revisited. Legal battles should have been fought in the courts and not in the streets. These are fought on the streets because legal battles won't make the kind of sound and fury that would satisfy the appetite of TV channels or social media warriors. It is seen as a result of communal and regional polarisation. The Muslims versus rest is also seen through the global phenomenon in which the Isis is marching ahead with its own version of Islam. This is the global reality, but many voices in Kashmir are afraid that “Kashmir would become a nursery of such a mindset.”
This danger-laced narrative has suppressed the aspirational majority. This majority wants a normal life, peace and no pin-pricks and no violence, no street disturbances and no fear of the corrupt system. Many people don't like the narrators who instigate violence and their manner of protest because the individual and collective credibility of these people is in doubt. But this is voiced only in private conversations in a majority of places. Open criticism has its own pitfalls as the first set of narrators have assumed the role of mullahs of religion. The silent majority is scared and helpless. The two narratives do not criss-cross. One is pronounced and the other is to be felt. Kashmir is caught in a pincer, but there is no ray of hope descending on the Vale. Smiles and laughter have vanished. There is despondency in the air.
