Posts Tagged ‘India’

Hindutva’s Violent History: Orissa

September 8, 2008

By Angana Chatterji | ZNet, Sep 7, 2008

HINDUTVA’S PRODUCTION of culture and nation is often marked by savagery. On 23 August 2008, Lakshmanananda Saraswati, Orissa’s Hindu nationalist icon, was murdered with four disciples in Jalespeta in Kandhamal district. State authorities alleged the attackers to be Maoists (and a group has subsequently claimed the murder). But the Sangh Parviar held the Christian community responsible, even though there is no evidence or history to suggest the armed mobilisation of Christian groups in Orissa.

After the murder, the All India Christian Council stated: “The Christian community in India abhors violence, condemns all acts of terrorism, and opposes groups of people taking the law into their own hands”. Gouri Prasad Rath, General Secretary, VHPOrissa, stated: “Christians have killed Swamiji. We will give a befitting reply. We would be forced to opt for violent protests if action is not taken against the killers”.

Following which, violence engulfed the district. Churches and Christian houses razed to the ground, frightened Christians hiding in the jungles or in relief camps. Officials record the death toll at 13, local leaders at 20, while the Asian Centre for Human Rights noted 50.

The Sangh’s history in postcolonial Orissa is long and violent. Virulent Hindutva campaigns against minority groups reverberated in Rourkela in 1964, Cuttack in 1968 and 1992, Bhadrak in 1986 and 1991, Soro in 1991. The Kandhamal riots were not unforeseen.

Since 2000, the Sangh has been strengthened by the Bharatiya Janata Party’s coalition government with the Biju Janata Dal. In October 2002, a Shiv Sena unit in Balasore district declared the formation of the first Hindu ‘suicide squad’. In March 2006, Rath stated that the “VHP believes that the security measures initiated by the Government [for protection of Hindus] are not adequate and hence Hindu society has taken the responsibility for it.”

The VHP has 1,25,000 primary workers in Orissa. The RSS operates 6,000 shakhas with a 1,50,000 plus cadre. The Bajrang Dal has 50,000 activists working in 200 akharas. BJP workers number above 4,50,000. BJP Mohila Morcha, Durga Vahini (7,000 outfits in 117 sites), and Rashtriya Sevika Samiti (80 centres) are three major Sangh women’s organisations. BJP Yuva Morcha, Youth Wing, Adivasi Morcha and Mohila Morcha have a prominent base. Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh manages 171 trade unions with a cadre of 1,82,000. The 30,000-strong Bharatiya Kisan Sangh functions in 100 blocks. The Sangh also operates various trusts and branches of national and international institutions to aid fundraising, including Friends of Tribal Society, Samarpan Charitable Trust, Sookruti, Yasodha Sadan, and Odisha International Centre. Sectarian development and education are carried out by Ekal Vidyalayas, Vanavasi Kalyan Ashrams/Parishads (VKAs), Vivekananda Kendras, Shiksha Vikas Samitis and Sewa Bharatis — cementing the brickwork for hate and civil polarisation.

This massive mobilisation has erupted in ugly incidents against both Christians and Muslims. In 1998, 5,000 Sangh activists allegedly attacked the Christian dominated Ramgiri-Udaygiri villages in Gajapati district, setting fire to 92 homes, a church, police station, and several government vehicles. Earlier, Sangh activists allegedly entered the local jail forcibly and burned two Christian prisoners to death. In 1999, Graham Staines, 58, an Australian missionary and his 10- and six-year-old sons were torched in Manoharpur village in Keonjhar. A Catholic nun, Jacqueline Mary was gangraped by men in Mayurbhanj and Arul Das, a Catholic priest, was murdered in Jamabani, Mayurbhanj, followed by the destruction of churches in Kandhamal. In 2002, the VHP converted 5,000 people to Hinduism. In 2003, the VKA organised a 15,000- member rally in Bhubaneswar, propagating that Adivasi (and Dalit) converts to Christianity be denied affirmative action. In 2004, seven women and a male pastor were forcibly tonsured in Kilipal, Jagatsinghpur district, and a social and economic boycott was imposed against them. A Catholic church was vandalised and the community targeted in Raikia.

Change the cast, the story is still the same. 1998: A truck transporting cattle owned by a Muslim was looted and burned, the driver’s aide beaten to death in Keonjhar district. 1999: Shiekh Rehman, a Muslim clothes merchant, was mutilated and burned to death in a public execution at the weekly market in Mayurbhanj. 2001: In Pitaipura village, Jagatsinghpur, Hindu communalists attempted to orchestrate a land-grab connected to a Muslim graveyard. On November 20, 2001, around 3,000 Hindu activists from nearby villages rioted. Muslim houses were torched, Muslim women were ill-treated, their property, including goats and other animals, stolen. 2005: In Kendrapara, a contractor was shot on Govari Embankment Road, supposedly by members of a Muslim gang. Sangh groups claimed the shooting was part of a gang war associated with Islamic extremism and called for a 12hour bandh. Hindu organisations are alleged to have looted and set Muslim shops on fire.

It is Saraswati who pioneered the Hinduisation of Kandhamal since 1969. Activists targeted Adivasis, Dalits, Christians and Muslims through socio-economic boycotts and forced conversions (named ‘re’conversion, presupposing Adivasis and Dalits as ‘originally’ Hindus).

Kandhamal first witnessed Hindutva violence in 1986. The VKAs, instated in 1987, worked to Hinduise Kondh and Kui Adivasis and polarise relations between them and Pana Dalit Christians. Kandhamal remains socio-economically vulnerable, a large percentage of its population living in poverty. Approximately 90 percent of Dalits are landless. A majority of Christians are landless or marginal landholders. Hindutva ideologues say Dalits have acquired economic benefits, augmented by Christianisation. This is not borne out in reality.

In October 2005, converting 200 Bonda Adivasi Christians to Hinduism in Malkangiri, Saraswati said: “How will we… make India a completely Hindu country? The feeling of Hindutva should come within the hearts and minds of all the people.” In April 2006, celebrating RSS architect Golwalkar’s centenary, Saraswati presided over seven yagnas attended by 30,000 Adivasis. In September 2007, supporting the VHP’s statewide road-rail blockade against the supposed destruction of the mythic ‘Ram Setu’, Saraswati conducted a Ram Dhanu Rath Yatra to mobilise Adivasis.

In 2008, Hindutva discourse named Christians as ‘conversion terrorists’. But the number of such conversions is highly inflated. They claim there are rampant and forced conversions in Phulbani-Kandhamal. But the Christian population in Kandhamal is 1,17,950 while Hindus number 5,27,757. Orissa Christians numbered 8,97,861 in the 2001 census — only 2.4 percent of the state’s population. Yet, Christian conversions are storied as debilitating to the majority status of Hindus while Muslims are seen as ‘infiltrating’ from Bangladesh, dislocating the ‘Oriya (and Indian) nation’.

The right to religious conversion is constitutionally authorised. Historically, conversions from Hinduism to Christianity or Islam have been a way to escape caste oppression and social stigma for Adivasis and Dalits. In February 2006, the VHP called for a law banning (non- Hindu) religious conversions. In June 2008, it urged that religious conversion be decreed a ‘heinous crime’ across India.

‘Reconversion’ strategies of the Sangh appear to be shifting in Orissa. The Sangh reportedly proposed to ‘reconvert’ 10,000 Christians in 2007. But fewer public conversion ceremonies were held in 2007 than in 2004- 2006. Converting politicised Adivasi and Dalit Christians to Hinduism is proving difficult. The Sangh has instead increased its emphasis on the Hinduisation of Adivasis through their participation in Hindu rituals, which, in effect, ‘convert’ Adivasis by assuming that they are Hindu.

The draconian Orissa Freedom of Religion Act (OFRA), 1967, must be repealed. There are enough provisions under the Indian Penal Code to prevent and prohibit conversions under duress. But consenting converts to Christianity are repeatedly charged under OFRA, while Hindutva perpetrators of forcible conversions are not. The Sangh contends that ‘reconversion’ to Hinduism through its ‘Ghar Vapasi’ (homecoming) campaign is not conversion but return to Hinduism, the ‘original’ faith. This allows them to dispense with the procedures under OFRA.

The Orissa Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1960 should also be repealed. It is utilised to target livelihood practices of economically disenfranchised groups, Adivasis, Dalits, Muslims, who engage in cattle trade and cow slaughter.

In fact, a CBI investigation into the activities of the VHP, RSS and Bajrang Dal is crucial as per the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Groups such as the VHP and VKA are registered as cultural and charitable organisations but their work is political in nature. They should be audited and recognised as political organisations, and their charitable status and privileges reviewed.

The state and central government’s refusal to restrain Hindu militias evidences their linkage with Hindutva (BJP), soft Hindutva (Congress), and the capitulation of civil society to Hindu majoritarianism. How would the nation have reacted if groups with affiliation other than than militant Hinduism executed riot after riot: Calcutta 1946, Kota 1953, Rourkela 1964, Ranchi 1967, Ahmedabad 1969, Bhiwandi 1970, Aligarh 1978, Jamshedpur 1979, Moradabad 1980, Meerut 1982, Hyderabad 1983, Assam 1983, Delhi 1984, Bhagalpur 1989, Bhadrak 1991, Ayodhya 1992, Mumbai 1992, Gujarat 2002, Marad 2003, Jammu 2008?

The BJD-BJP government has repeatedly failed to honour the constitutional mandate separating religion from state. In 2005-06, Advocate Mihir Desai and I convened the Indian People’s Tribunal on Communalism in Orissa, led by Retired Kerala Chief Justice KK Usha. The Tribunal’s findings detailed the formidable mobilisation by majoritarian communalist organisations, including in Kandhamal, and the Sangh’s visible presence in 25 of 30 districts. The report did not invoke any response from the state or central government.

In January 2000, The Asian Age reported: “‘One village, one shakha’ is the new slogan of the RSS as it aims to saffronise the entire Gujarat state by 2005.” Then ensued the genocide of March 2002. In 2003, Subash Chouhan, then Bajrang Dal state convener, stated: “Orissa is the second Hindu Rajya (to Gujarat).”

We all know what has happened in Kandhamal December 2007, and again now. The communal situation in Orissa is dire. State and civil society resistance to Hindutva’s ritual and catalytic abuse cannot wait.

The writer is associate professor of anthropology at California Institute of Integral Studies and author of a forthcoming book: Violent Gods: Hindu Nationalism in India’s Present, Narratives from Orissa

Conversions

September 8, 2008

Badri Raina’s ZSpace Page

I

Now, as Miss Austen would have said, it is a truth universally acknowledged that India is the world’s largest democracy.

What, however, is less well-known is that it is also the most sinuously adjustable.

Take any of India’s political parties—excluding the ossified Left which remains unprofitably wedded to principle, although the principle may change from circumstance to circumstance—and you will find that its elected legislators may, whenever the paramount “national interest” so requires, leave the party fold and conscientiously defect to a more winsome outfit.

And since all parties are happily agreed, at least in private, that the “national interest” does often demand such selfless departures, few questions that may tend to a negative read of such “necessity” are ever seriously entertained.

For example:

Is it right that a politician elected on one platform of public trust jettison his/her covenant with the voter who elected him/her, or jettison his covenant with the particular party that gave him a ticket in the first place, and go over to another party that he/she may have in fact roundly castigated during the campaign?

Should the democratic system permit such betrayal of public trust?

Or, put another way, allow political “conversions” where public faith and hope are involved?

It may be the  case that in that mother of all democracies, Great Britain, such conversions are pretty much unheard of; indeed there they have a party—the Liberal Democrats—who never seem to ever want to do anything nimble enough to bring them close to state power.  Backward child of long standing.

But, in the scheme of evolution, Indian democracy is a later species, and one more adept at the all-important principle of survival, chiefly personal.

It is true that when legislators offer the supreme sacrifice of conversion from one political allegiance to another, the public cry foul.  But it is equally true that few political animals worldwide are as adroit at persuading the public to the contrary as the Indian politician.  Which is why, more often than not, they are re-elected from a new party, on a new ticket.  Until the next one beckons.

II

Same is the case with the denizens of the companies and the corporates.

They may liquidate or merge with each other upon deep expert and managerial considerations dictated, no doubt, by the country’s best interests, even if often at lethal cost to the share-holders who aid them in the first place to come into existence.

As to the high-ups who run and flaunt these companies, who indoctrinate new recruits with the best principles of my- number- one, complete with frontier echelons of advertisers, commercial artists, and IT whiz kids, one never knows when the supreme economic well-being of brand Bharat may require any prominent CEO to be, Coriolanus-like, conferencing on behalf of Corporate A in the morning and a rival corporate B the same afternoon.

Indeed, a superior executive who is seen to be hanging on to the same company for longer than time X invites the suspicion that he/she may not have much more to contribute to the health of the nation than is worth his/her current pay and perks package.

Like the enterprising politician, the company executive must be seen to be on the move, converting from one school of principles to the next, even if diametrically opposite ones.

Thus, among the money-makers and idea-spinners too “conversion” is seen to be altogether of the greatest utility and consequence to the body politic.

That the body politic may know next to nothing of these rarefied goings-on, or may know that which contradicts the claims of the converted, or may often indeed  be at the gruesome receiving end of clandestine entrepreneurial Chinese chequers (in the shape of lethal gas leakages, or polluted drinking water, or manipulated shortages and prices, or fraudulent medicines in the market, or financial transactions that bring several edifices down) only goes to prove that what we in a democracy call the true sovereigns, namely the people, are nine out of ten unteachable and best remain so.

III

Indian democracy has, however, repeatedly demonstrated that the one domain where “conversions” are taboo is the that which involves neither public trust nor party loyalty but  is a matter of exclusive personal persuasion.  A schema sanctified by the Constitution of the Republic of India.  That book of common prayer says that, contrary to the barbarisms of old, what gods you worship or do not worship is entirely your business and nobody else’s.

Yet, when a citizen of India goes over from one religious faith to another, then it is, paradoxically you may well say, that the very foundations of the nation-state are shaken;  then it is that public anguish may be wrought to a pitch that blood may flow, habitations go up in flames, and innocent men, women, and children be cut up like mutton for some conquering carnival.

If you don’t know how, take a trip to kandhamal in Orissa.  There you will find the Gujarat of 2002 replicated with a fury that refuses to abate, and that the powers-that-be seem in no hurry to abate either.  All too familiar.

And you thought India was a secular state.  More fool you.

IV

The killers of Kandhamal answer as follows:  they will not tolerate conversions brought about through “inducements.”  That is, all except their own kind.  Naturally.

To wit, we are to understand that conversions from one political platform to another may well be humongously induced ones, conversions that through the years have, termite-like, gnawed into the very edifice of the state and polity, but since these can be argued to be in the “national interest” no objection can be made.

We are likewise to understand that conversions of CEOs and whole conglomerates may indeed be even more humongously induced—often with ramifications that make inimical foreign agents stake-holders in the life of the Republic—but that the business of business, after all, is business. Think that after all India may be the only civilization where wealth is worshipped as a goddess rather than derided like Mammon.   So when a Nano car runs down the highway, the occurrence not only may stir national pride but equally inspire the rag-picker to say “vande mataram. What blessing that I am a rag-picker of this ‘mahan Bharat’ rather than of some lesser country.”

V

The conundrum of course is that unlike the top echelons of political outfits or of corporate board rooms who frequently turn coat themselves in the larger interest, the gods and prophets who have spawned various religious corporations never do put in an appearance.

It is thus their politic and permanent absence which leaves no choice to the managers of various faiths but to hold fast to red lines that were seemingly laid down forever.  And to order murder and mayhem whenever such lines are deemed to be crossed.

Thus, how truly the Bard did say:

“As flies to wanton boys
Are we to the gods;
They kill us for their sport.”

And the gods having so decreed, how may a home minister here, or a chief minister there meddle in these matters.  A loyal republic is one that must wait the next incarnation.  Then, automatically, police reform, judicial reform, educational reform, administrative reform, ideological reform shall descend upon the South Block, and the letters  s e c u l a r i s m  be rendered sufficiently incandescent for the government to see.

Pending that momentous happening, you may not convert from one faith to another, even if we grab your land, burn and slash your patch of forest, rape your women if you do put up resistance—or even if you don’t, bar you from our drinking water well, and from entry into the temple (which god knows why you wish to enter in the first place), deny you education, food, medicine, or kick your teeth in if you dare be standing while we pass.

You are neither a politician nor a CEO; so you  will not convert upon inducement even of a loaf of bread, a word of dignity, a promise of brotherhood, an assurance of nursing in your disease, or of equal right to a pint of water when your thirst so maddens you.

And if you do, our hordes shall surely descend under full protection of the majesty of the state.

Then when you come crawling, we shall spit on you  and  convert you back—all in one spiritual go.

badri.raina@gmail.com

INDIA/US: Nuclear Waiver – Blow to Non-Proliferation

September 8, 2008

Analysis by Praful Bidwai | Inter-Press Service News,  Sep 8, 2008

NEW DELHI, – The special waiver granted to India by the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) from its nuclear trade rules is being seen as a massive setback to the cause of global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.

The NSG’s waiver will allow India to resume nuclear commerce with the rest of the world with very few restrictions although India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has refused to accede to any other agreement for preventing the spread of, reducing the numbers of, or abolishing nuclear weapons.

The 45-nation conglomerate, a private arrangement set up after India’s first nuclear weapons explosion in 1974, turned a full circle at its special meeting in Vienna, on the weekend, the second one in a fortnight, held at the behest of the United States.

The NSG was originally established “to ensure that nuclear trade for peaceful purposes does not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices”.

But it has now done the very opposite by agreeing to the exceptional waiver for India as part of New Delhi’s controversial nuclear cooperation deal with the U.S. inked three years ago.

Washington hailed the waiver as “historic” and one that would boost nuclear non-proliferation, while New Delhi described the deal as an “important step” towards meeting the challenges of climate change and sustainable development.

Clearly though, the waiver only became possible because of the strong-arm methods used by the U.S. to bludgeon dissenting NSG members into agreeing to the exemption text it had drafted in consultation with India.

Contrary to the claim that the waiver, and more generally, the U.S.-India nuclear deal, will bring India into the global “non-proliferation mainstream” or promote nuclear restraint on India’s part, it will allow India to expand its nuclear weapons arsenal and encourage a nuclear arms race in Asia, particularly in the volatile South Asian subcontinent, where Pakistan emerged as India’s nuclear rival 10 years ago.

The special waiver has been roundly criticised by nuclear disarmament and peace groups throughout the world, including in India.

The waiver, says the U.S.-India Deal Working Group of the disarmament network ‘ABOLITION 2000’, comprising more than 2,000 peace groups worldwide, “creates a dangerous distinction between ‘good’ proliferators and ‘bad’ proliferators and sends out misleading signals to the international community…”

“The exemption” it adds, “will not bring India further into conformity with the non-proliferation behaviour expected of the member-states of the NPT.”

Barring the exceptional situation in which India might conduct another nuclear test, the NSG imposes no significant conditions on nuclear trade with India. Even this condition is not stated up-front, and is mentioned in reference to a general statement by India’s Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee on Sep. 5, in which he reiterated India’s unilateral and voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing and its non-proliferation commitments.

But a voluntary moratorium can be lifted easily and unilaterally. In any case, it falls short of a legally binding commitment not to test.

India had insisted on a “clean and unconditional” waiver from the NSG, and has very nearly secured it, thanks to the indulgence of the U.S., which proposed the deal in the first place and lobbied hard and furiously for it.

With the waiver under its belt, India can proceed to import uranium fuel, of which it is running short, and a range of other nuclear materials, equipment and technologies for its civilian nuclear programme. But it can divert domestic uranium exclusively for weapons purposes.

“Under the U.S.-India nuclear deal, India signed an agreement to separate its military nuclear facilities from civilian installations and subject some of the latter to safeguards under the International Atomic Energy Agency,” says Achin Vanaik, head of the department of political science at Delhi University, and a national coordination committee member of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (India).

According to Vanaik, India will only put 14 of its 22 operating or planned civilian nuclear reactors under IAEA safeguards, which are meant to ensure that no nuclear material from them is diverted to military purposes. ”But it can use the remaining eight reactors to produce as much plutonium as it likes for its weapons programme.”

According to a report prepared by independent scientists and experts for the International Panel on Fissile Materials two years ago, these eight reactors alone can yield fuel for as many as 40 Nagasaki-type bombs every year.

In addition, India can produce more bomb fuel from its dedicated military nuclear facilities and fast-breeder reactors, which it can maintain and expand.

India accepts no limits or restrictions on the size of its nuclear arsenal and has an ambitious nuclear doctrine under which it continues to stockpile fissile material for weapons use.

The NSG has all but put its imprimatur on India’s nuclear activities which would allow it to expand its arsenal of mass-destruction weapons and thus set a negative example for the rest of the world, in particular, wannabe atomic states.

In the process, says Daryl F. Kimball of the Arms Control Association (U.S.), the NSG has undermined “efforts to contain Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear programmes, and it will make it nearly impossible to win support for much-needed measures to strengthen the NPT” at its next review conference due in 2010.

The waiver may weaken and harm the NPT itself by aiding the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a country not recognised by it as a nuclear weapons-state, which it explicitly prohibits. Effectively, it expands the Nuclear Club to include a member which has refused to sign the treaty.

Within the NSG, there was a great deal of resistance to the waiver. An earlier meeting of the group, on Aug. 21-22, failed to produce a consensus — necessary for any decision to go through.

The resistance was led by six “like-minded” countries –Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland — which argued that India must accept three conditions in order to resume nuclear trade.

These included a periodic review of compliance with India’s non-proliferation pledges, exclusion from trade of sensitive technologies such as uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing, and cessation of nuclear commerce in case India tests.

In the event, India only accepted the first condition and doggedly refused to go beyond reiterating its unilateral moratorium on testing.

However, on the second day of the NSG meeting, Foreign Minister Mukherjee made a general statement saying that India is opposed to nuclear proliferation, does not subscribe to an arms race, and will behave responsibly as a nuclear weapons-state.

“The statement was inane and dishonest because India initiated and has sustained a nuclear arms race in South Asia,” says M.V. Ramana from the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in the Environment and Development, Banagalore. “It is really a sad commentary on the state of debate at the NSG if such statements actually create what was described by the U.S. delegate as a ‘positive momentum’…”

Eventually, the “positive result” in the form of the waiver was achieved after Mukherjee’s statement effectively split the “like-minded” group and led to the desertion of the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland on the evening of Sep. 5.

Behind the change was crude pressure, blackmail and induced fear of “isolation” on account of antagonising the “emerging power” that is India. The topmost leaders of the U.S., India and their allies worked the telephone lines to mount this pressure.

Kimball said that ‘’it appears as if George Bush and his team engaged in some nasty threats, misinformation about positions, and intimidation, to wear down the core six members … and their allies. You have to assume the conversations among foreign ministers, presidents, and prime ministers didn’t focus on the policy and non-proliferation issues, but raw politics”.

“Another factor,’’ Kimball added, ‘’was the role of Germany, ostensibly the NSG chair. At this meeting, the Germans apparently sat on their thumbs and let the Americans run the show and keep asking for more consultations despite the remaining differences. A more competent and less biased chair would have provided more balance and would have adjourned the meeting Friday night when it was clear there was still disagreement on some fundamental issues…”

China briefly emerged as a supporter of the Group of Six, when it asked that the waiver decision not be rushed. But, say Indian media reports, a critically timed telephone call from Bush to Chinese president Hu Jintao did the trick and China quickly fell in line.

“This was a triumph of crass power politics,” says Vanaik. “It is sad and profoundly disturbing that nobody resisted U.S. or Indian pressure and stood up for elementary principles in a group where even a single member could have blocked the waiver. India’s ‘victory’ is founded on crude muscle power and cynicism, and negates rational, democratic decision-making based on a commitment to making the world a safer place.”

(*IPS correspondent Praful Bidwai is a noted peace activist and co-founder of the Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament (MIND), based in New Delhi.)

MEDIA-INDIA: Columnists Support Kashmir’s Secession

September 4, 2008

Analysis by Rita Manchanda | Independent Press Service,

NEW DELHI, Sep 4  – “Anti-national” is the charge hurled in India at the usual radical suspects who argue for the right to self-determination of the Kashmiri people.

But the recent outcrop of media columnists asking Indians to, “think the unthinkable”, “let Kashmir go” and “we’d be better off”, are respected mainstream editors of leading national dailies and top columnists. They include Vir Sanghvi of the mass-circulation the Hindustan Times, Jug Suraiya of the Times of India, popular columnist Swaminathan A. Aiyar and activist-writer Arundhati Roy.

Moreover, according to a recent public opinion survey, these writers are reflecting growing popular sentiment. A Times of India survey of young professionals conducted across nine cities revealed a sizeable 30 percent polled feeling that if the economic and human costs were so high, India should not hold on to the Kashmir, though 59 percent felt they should hold on at any cost.

Some two-thirds of those polled said ‘No’ to the question whether the state of Jammu and Kashmir [or part of it] should be allowed to secede. Poll analysts explained that contradiction as indicating that, while thinking on Kashmir remains unclear, Kashmir’s possible secession has, for the first time in years, ‘’become a matter of common debate.”

What has produced this unsettling in the public perception of restored normalcy in the insurgency-wracked Himalayan valley? Kashmiris are back on streets in tumultuous numbers, defiantly chanting “We want freedom” and with equal intensity, “Long live Pakistan”.

The crisis which began two months ago over the proposed transfer of 100 acres forest land in the Muslim-dominated Kashmir valley to a Hindu religious Board based in Jammu has shattered the myth of Kashmiris being reconciled to integrating with India. A new twist is the communalisation of the intra-state Jammu- Kashmir divide posited as Hindu nationalists v/s Islamist separatists. It has buried faith in ‘Kashmiriyat’ (or Kashmiriness), the cultural syncretism of the Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists of Kashmir.

Indian administered Kashmir consists of three distinct regions: Hindu dominated Jammu, the Muslim majority Kashmir valley and Ladakh, which is largely Buddhist. Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas are administered by Pakistan.

Muslim Pakistan and largely-Hindu but constitutionally secular India have, ever since they were created by the 1947 partition of the subcontinent on religious grounds, been in dispute over the possession of Kashmir. Three wars fought over the issue have not succeeded in altering the fact that two-thirds of the territory is administered by India and one third by Pakistan.

‘Kashmir fatigue’ appears to be driving the new sentiment behind the emerging public debate. “It is not being driven by the recognition of the legitimacy of the Kashmiri people’s right to decide, but by a sense of exasperation at pampered and mollycoddled Kashmiris remaining anti-Indian,’’ says leading Kashmir human rights campaigner Tapan Bose. “Shining India does not want to have the blot of coercively holding onto resentful and alienated Kashmiris,’’ he added.

Sanghvi’s article on Aug. 16 succinctly strikes these several chords — “What does the Centre get in return for the special favours and billions of dollars spent?” ‘’Far from gratitude, there is active hatred of India. Pakistan, a small, second-rate country that has been left far behind by India, suddenly acts as though it is on par with us, lecturing India in human rights”. “We have the world to conquer, and the means to do it. Kashmir is a 20th century problem. We cannot let it drag us down and bleed us as we assume our rightful place in the world.”

Swaminathan Aiyar and Jug Suraiya have a more liberal perspective. Aiyar acknowledges that “democracy (in Kashmir) has been a farce for almost six decades”. There are uncomfortable parallels with colonial rule over British India and the quasi colonialism of India’s rule “over those who resent it” in Kashmir. Suraiya tweaks the argument of Kashmir’s secession fatally wounding the idea of India as a pluralist polity and democratic society. “India can survive without Kashmir, if it has to; it can’t survive without the idea of India, central to which is the idea of democratic dissent and the free association of people”. This is being eroded in holding Kashmiris against their will.

Arundhati Roy, writing in the ‘Guardian’ on Aug. 22, gives it a radical twist: “India needs azadi (freedom) from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs azadi from India”. Roy asserts, that “the non-violent people’s protest is nourished by people’s memory of years of repression”. Drawing a wider frame, she warns that “Indian military occupation makes monsters of us and allows Hindu chauvinists to target and victimise Muslims in India by holding them hostage to the freedom struggle being waged in Kashmir’’.

Expressing surprise at such articles by people who (except Roy) have never campaigned for azadi, Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal, executive editor of the respected ‘Kashmir Times’ newspaper said: “We have always campaigned for ‘azadi’. This is just the wrong time. Nobody thinks about the repercussions of the disintegration of the state on communal lines (especially, Doda, Rajouri and Poonch). Whose azadi are they talking about? The need is to douse the fires and begin dialogue at different levels.”

Among the flurry of reactive articles, representative of the national security line is strategic analyst K. Subrahmanyam writing in the Times of India on Aug. 22 is adamant against any redrawing of borders. Subrahmanyam, a known nationalist, warns that if Kashmiris are allowed to secede, ‘’there would be consequences that have to be anticipated’’.

‘’During the partition of the subcontinent in 1947-48, such consequences were not foreseen and the result was a bloodbath resulting the death of a million people and ethnic cleansing involving 15 million,’’ Subrahmanyam argues.

Appealing for greater responsibility and efforts to retrieve ‘Kashmiriyat’, eminent journalist Kuldip Nayar warned in the ‘Deccan Herald’ on Aug. 29 that the independence of Kashmir would mean a takeover of the territory by the Taliban or terrorists. Political editor of ‘The Hindu,’ Harish Khare, has on Aug. 28 cautioned against “over reacting to provocative slogans in Lal Chowk’’ and said there is ‘’no need to be apologetic about our democratic values and practices”. Kashmir society could still be “weaned away from violence, distrust and suspicion.”

Sultan Shaheen, editor of the website ‘New Age Islam’, has decried the ‘irresponsibility’ of public intellectuals arguing for letting Kashmir go. “What about the nationalist Muslims of Kashmir? It was the vision of secularism and pluralism that had brought them to India in the first place. Kashmir is important for common Indians because Kashmiriyat is a prototype for Hindustaniyat — a unique blend of unity in ideological diversity.”

(END/2008)

Yasin Malik, Geelani, Mirwaiz salute people of Kashmir

September 3, 2008
Listen Listen Font Size a+ a-

Srinagar, Sept 2: A day after their release, senior pro-freedom leaders, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Muhammad Yasin Malik and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, on Tuesday saluted the people of Kashmir for remaining firm on their resolve and for showing tremendous resilience.
Geelani, who was admitted in SK Institute of Medical Sciences here after his release on Monday, said, “India, by using force to crush the popular movement, has been exposed before the international community.”
He lauded the people for remaining firm on their resolve and not succumbing to pressure. “We’ve to carry forward our movement peacefully. India has lost its credibility by using excessive force to crush the movement.”
The veteran leader urged the people to follow the programs given by the Coordination Committee, an amalgam of pro-freedom groups, traders, transporters, lawyers and members of the civil society, spearheading the present movement in Kashmir. “Future course of action will be decided in the next meeting of the Coordination Committee.”
Geelani said, adding that all the aspects would be taken into consideration before finalizing the next program. “We don’t want people to suffer. Life and movement have to move on together.”
Geelani outrightly rejected the recent agreement between the government and Amarnath Yatra Sangharsh Samiti over land row. “For us 800 kanals of land is no issue, we are fighting for a bigger cause of freedom,” he said.
Urging pro-freedom leadership to unite and fight collectively for the cause, Geelani said, “Unity among the pro-freedom leadership is the need of the hour. We’ve to remain united at this crucial juncture.”
Talking to Greater Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front chairman, Muhammad Yasin Malik, said, “People of Kashmir have won. They have proved it to the world that their movement is indigenous and it’s non-violent.”
“Entire leadership salutes the brave people of Kashmir for remaining firm on their resolve and for showing tremendous resilience,” said Malik.
The JKLF chairman said that till now international community was under the impression that Kashmiris were “terrorists” but by holding peaceful demonstrations they had proved that they are not for violence. “Kashmiris have sent a clear message to the international community and they have won millions of supporters. People in India too have realized that voice of Kashmiris cannot be muzzled through force. It’s heartening to see that Indian media too is giving space to the feelings of Kashmiris,” Malik said, adding, “I’m happy that entire leadership has agreed upon carrying forward the struggle peacefully.”
Malik said that he laid the foundation of peaceful Kashmir struggle by first carrying out the signature campaign and then Safar-e-Azadi (Journey for freedom) across the Valley.
The chairman of Hurriyat (M) Mirwaiz Umar Farooq said that use of force against peaceful demonstrators and confining people within the four walls of their houses was not going to help India’s cause. “By doing so they (New Delhi) made the resolve of Kashmiris stronger. New Delhi cannot keep on resorting to violence against the non-violent people. I salute the people of Kashmir for showing tremendous resilience and courage.”
Mirwaiz reiterated that peaceful movement will continue and mission of martyrs will be taken to its logical end.
“New Delhi cannot frighten us by arresting and intimidating us. Kashmiri leadership is committed to the people of Kashmir and will never let them down,” said Mirwaiz.
He said that pro-freedom leadership will interact with cross section of the society and will take everyone into confidence before deciding the future course of action.

INDIA: Dialogue Missing as Kashmir Erupts

September 2, 2008

Analysis by Praful Bidwai | Inter Press Service, Sep 2, 2008


NEW DELHI, – Even as the Jammu region of the strife-torn Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir is settling down to normality and peace, a two month-old turmoil in the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley shows no signs of abating.

The Kashmir unrest, which unseated the elected government of the state in July, now threatens to become a serious problem for India yet again, with international ramifications, in particular implications for India’s already fraught relations with Pakistan.

Following independence in 1947 and the partition of India, on the basis of religion, Jammu and Kashmir became disputed between Pakistan and India and three wars have been fought between the two countries for the territory’s complete possession. India’s Jammu and Kashmir state is referred to by Pakistan as “Indian-occupied Kashmir” while India refers to Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas collectively as “Pakistan-occupied Kashmir”.

India’s Jammu and Kashmir state consists of two distinct regions; Hindu-dominated Jammu and the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley. A third region, Ladakh, is largely Buddhist. Srinagar in the Kashmir Valley serves as the summer capital and Jammu town the winter capital.

Trouble began with rival Hindu and Muslim militants protesting for and against the transfer of 100 acres of land for camping arrangements to host a Hindu pilgrimage to a shrine in a cave in the Kashmir Valley, called the Amarnath Shrine, where an ice stalactite that forms for up to two months in a year, is worshipped by devout Hindus.

Political organisations in the Kashmir Valley saw the transfer as a means of placating the Hindus and as an intrusion into their autonomous cultural space.

Their protests led the state government to cancel the transfer. The Hindu-majority Jammu region reacted to this with an emotionally charged violent agitation and a blockade of goods entering the Valley along the Jammu-Srinagar highway, the only functional road connecting mainland India to the Kashmir Valley.

This blockade added to the ferocity of the protests in the Valley, and put Kashmiri separatists in their forefront. Some groups that favour merger of the Kashmir Valley with Pakistan waved the green flag of the neighbouring country.

The government of Jammu and Kashmir finally reached a settlement on Sunday with the Sri Amarnath Yatra Sangharsh Samiti (SAYSS), a coalition of different groups spearheading the agitation in Jammu, many of which are close to the pro-Hindu, nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Sunday’s settlement allows for temporary arrangements to be made for makeshift tents and other facilities during the pilgrimage, without a change in the ownership and status of or title to the land.

Following the agreement, the agitation in Jammu was formally withdrawn. But that has had very little impact on the Kashmir Valley, where the government re-imposed a curfew after thousands of people took to the streets in its Northern towns.

While many Kashmiri parties have not yet reacted to the agreement, the People’s Democratic Party, which ran a coalition government with the Congress party in Jammu and Kashmir for nearly six years, condemned it as a “unilateralist” and “authoritarian” move, made without consulting the Valley’s politicians.

Some other political leaders from the Valley termed the settlement “irrelevant” to resolving the larger Kashmir question of autonomy and freedom in keeping with the sentiments of the people.

“The ease with which the settlement was reached, without substantially changing the status quo, and with only minor concessions being offered to the SAYSS, shows that the agitation was politically motivated in the first place,” says Kamal Mitra Chenoy, a political scientist at Jawaharlal Nehru University here, who has been involved with reconciliation and peace efforts in Jammu and Kashmir for many years.

“The BJP was fishing in the troubled waters in Kashmir with an eye on the legislative assembly elections, which are due by the end of the year, but are likely to be postponed,’’ said Chenoy. ‘’The organisations it controls in Jammu used deplorably rough methods to enforce a traffic blockade of the Valley, including attacking truck drivers with rocks and acid bulbs. Its methods drew an adverse reaction from the rest of India, which is one reason why it withdrew the agitation. But it has succeeded in polarising Jammu and Kashmir along regional and communal lines.”

One indication of this is the growing alienation of the Valley’s people from India and the pro-separatist mood now prevalent there. The Kashmir situation was repeatedly mishandled by New Delhi through its appointee, Jammu and Kashmir Governor N.N. Vohra and his administration.

The administration first failed to anticipate the protests, and then cracked down heavily on them. Many Kashmiris complain that the government handled the Jammu agitation with kid gloves, but used excessive force in the Valley to suppress even peaceful protests: “rubber bullets in Jammu, and live bullets in the Valley”.

The government relented in the Valley during much of August, as it proceeded to break the blockade in Jammu. However, since Aug. 24, it has resorted to a crackdown, arrests of prominent leaders, and repeated curfew.

“This has resulted in heightening the alienation of ordinary Kashmiris from the Indian state,” says Yusuf Tarigami, a Jammu and Kashmir lawmaker from the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and a widely respected political leader. “Mercifully, that alienation is not as severe as in the early 1990s, and may yet prove transient.”

Tarigami cites a number of differences between the post-1989 climate and the present situation. Then, a number of militant groups, including the largely indigenous Hizbul Mujaheedin, were hyperactive in demanding “freedom” and Kashmir’s separation from India.

These militant groups managed and subdued the relatively moderate political leadership of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference. Pakistan armed and financed the militant groups and lent them logistical support. Savage repression unleashed by Indian security forces only helped them build a support base in the Valley.

Today, militant groups are no longer able to recruit cadres. Until the anti-land transfer protests broke out, the Kashmir Valley was relatively peaceful and the extremists were isolated. Issues of governance and day-to-day survival became dominant. Tourism experienced a boom.

The Hurriyat was even on the verge of deciding not to issue a call to boycott the assembly elections, as it usually does.

“Above all, Kashmir has not been a live political issue in Pakistan since the peace process with India made progress,” says Karachi-based social activist and political analyst Karamat Ali. “It hasn’t figured in the domestic political debate at all since the February elections and later developments, including Pervez Musharraf’s resignation as president.”

This offers a chance for India to begin a serious dialogue with the different separatist political currents in Kashmir and put the issue of autonomy up-front on the table.

But the Indian establishment appears divided on the issue. Hardliners such as National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan play down the serious nature of Kashmiri alienation and popular discontent with the domineering presence of Indian security forces in the Valley. Narayanan told a television channel, two days ago that he expected the Kashmir situation to become normal in 10 days’ time.

However, another section of the government has advised Governor Vohra to explore the possibility of a dialogue with separatist leaders and Vohra has been contacting them since Sunday.

“Eventually,” says Chenoy, “a viable solution to the Kashmir problem will have to be found in the kind of suggestions for regional and interregional autonomy made 10 years ago by an official committee chaired by Balraj Puri, and through a strengthening of the special status for Kashmir guaranteed by a particular section (Article 370) of the Indian Constitution. This must be accompanied by a thinning out of the presence of Indian security forces in the Valley, and devolution of power to local and regional bodies.”

Jammu and Kashmir is the only state in India which enjoys special autonomy under Article 370, according to which, laws enacted by Indian parliament, except those concerning defence, communication and foreign policy, is inapplicable unless ratified by the state legislature.

But Chenoy emphasises that “in the short run, there is no substitute for a dialogue. That alone can build the necessary confidence and goodwill, which India so badly needs’’.

The forgotten millions

August 31, 2008

As Pakistan’s political leaders wrangle over the small print, the welfare of the country’s people has dropped off the agenda

Last November, I lost a long-standing bet with a friend when General Pervez Musharraf finally relinquished his military role and then embarked on a new term as Pakistan’s civilian president. Up to that point, the idea that he might give up his army uniform had always seemed ludicrous – thus leading me to enter into the bet so confidently.

The end of Benazir Bhutto’s self-imposed exile from Pakistan last October was the turning point in the country’s political rat race. The response by thousands of PPP supporters to her arrival was enough to drive Musharraf to impose a state of emergency.

August 18 this year, however, saw the end of Musharraf’s regime. His haphazard constitutional changes, some of which include the suspension of the judiciary (which is still in turmoil today) and other actions such as the military operation against Red Mosque fundamentalists and the curtailing of high-profile media channels, ended up backfiring.

The ineffectual methods used to quell the uproar after Bhutto’s assassination last December, when the authorities failed to solve the case, contributed to a further fall from grace in the public eye. Towards the end of his regime, the discontent reached its height, turning into an almost unanimous anti-Musharraf campaign in the national media, and exacerbating the civil war raging in the tribal areas.

What of Pakistan’s future now? Since Asif Zardari, Bhutto’s husband and co-chairperson of the Pakistan People’s party (PPP), currently the largest party, has nominated himself for the presidential seat, a new debate has been sparked, with the opposition in uproar. Last Monday, Pakistan Muslim League-N leader Nawaz Sharif parted ways with the PPP, leading to the collapse of the five-month-old coalition government, on the grounds that Zardari had not kept his word regarding the restoration of the judiciary or democracy. An agreement signed on August 7 by the two leaders was also exposed to the public. It clearly stated the executive restoration of the judges would occur one day after the impeachment or resignation of President Musharraf. Zardari, however, employed every delaying tactic at hand to prevent this policy from going through. The accord also stated that once Musharraf was out of the picture, both leaders would put forward nonpartisan candidates for presidency. Asif Zardari went ahead and declared himself a candidate for president without informing or consulting Nawaz Sharif, and announced that the elections would take place on September 6.

The current stalemate between the former allies and the fractured coalition seem to loom larger in politics than the survival of Pakistanis who are unable to cope with massive food and fuel inflation. While the judges and the constitutional bills are lofty policy matters of grave significance, the politicians in the country seem to have lost sight of what image they are portraying both at home and abroad.

With nuclear neighbour India already licking its chops and the US circling, eager to launch an inevitable counter-terrorism campaign in Pakistan, it appears that the country stands closer to decline than ever before, democracy or no democracy. But there are those who dare to hope yet. Hope, even, that there might be a reformation on the horizon, or that after the resolution of conflicts, the country will return to the path of peaceful development. Hope that no foreign conflict lies ahead, and that the dire energy crisis will be resolved within the five to six-year timeline given, or even that there will not still be forces at loggerheads on policy technicalities, skirting the issue of the welfare of the nation. I, for one, am not willing to wager very much on that these hopes will be realised. Are you?

Killing of Kashmiris continues: 3 more die in troops firing

August 28, 2008

Greater Kashmir, August 28, 2008

Listen Listen Font Size a+ a-

Srinagar, Aug 27:  Three civilians were killed and at least 50 others injured when Police and paramilitary CRPF troopers fired upon the protesters in different parts of the Valley on Wednesday, witnesses and reports said.
2 killed in Budgam
Tension gripped Soibugh area of central Kashmir’s Budgam district, Wednesday afternoon when troopers and policemen arrested a youth Rafiq Ahmed, locals said.
They said that as the news about Rafiq’s arrest spread in the area people defied curfew and took to the roads demanding release of Rafiq. Policemen and paramilitary CRPF troopers opened fire to disperse the protesters killing Hilal Ahmed Mir son of Abdul Khaliq Mir on the spot and injuring 15 others. Injured were rushed to a hospital where Ghulam Nabi Wani succumbed.
Protester killed in Handwara
A civilian was killed and six others injured when troopers opened fire to disperse the protesters at Banday mohalla in Handwara on Wednesday, witnesses said.
They said troopers beat up the namazis near Banday mohalla who came out of the Masjid after offering Zuhar prayers this afternoon. As word about Namazis being beaten spread in the area people came out on the roads and staged a massive protest.
Policemen and troopers who reached the spot opened fire injuring one Muhammad Yousuf Banday critically. He was rushed to Sub District Hospital Handwara where he died.
Meanwhile residents of Chopan mohalla Handwara staged massive protests against troopers barging into their houses during night. “Troopers barged into our houses last night and resorted to arson,” residents of Chopan mohalla Handwara alleged.
Witnesses said that as the word about the incident spread in the area hundreds of people defied the curfew and took to the roads. Policemen reached the spot and resorted to baton charge to disperse the protesters. Policemen fired tear smoke canisters and resorted to aerial firing. In police action at least six protesters sustained injuries.
10 injured in Rainawari
Reports said that as the curfew was relaxed in the Rainawari area in Shehar-e-Khaas here,
Paramilitary CRPF troopers allegedly beat up a woman and another person without any provocation during relaxation period.  Later CRPF men gate crashed into the house of 75-year-old priest Haji Noor Muhammad Mugloo and beat up the inmates, including men and women. The house hold goods were also ransacked by the CRPF men, locals alleged.
As the word about the incident spread in the area people came out on the roads and tried staging a demonstration. CRPF troopers opened fire on the demonstrators injuring at least 10 persons.
2 injured in Naidkhai
At least two persons were injured when police and troopers opened fire to disperse a procession at Naidkhai  in north Kashmir’s Bandipora district Wednesday evening, witnesses said.
They said that troopers without any provocation hurled choicest of invectives on the residents who had come out to buy essential commodities. People responded by raising pro-freedom and anti-India slogans and tried staging a protest. CRPF troopers opened fire to disperse the protesters injuring at least two persons.
Bakers ‘beaten’ for preparing bread
Residents of many Shehar-e-Khaas localities on Wednesday accused paramilitary CRPF  troopers of going berserk and beating up the bakers to pulp who tried to prepare the bread.
“ Bakers who tried to open their shops this morning were beaten to pulp by the troopers. They (troopers) told the bakers that they will kill them if they prepare any bread for the people,” a caller from Nawa Kadal told Greater Kashmir over phone.
The indefinite curfew imposed by the authorities on Sunday entered into fourth day, today. “We’ve nothing to eat, children and kids are starving,” said another caller from Bohri Kadal.

Independence primary demand in Kashmir: PUDR

August 27, 2008

Greater Kashmir, August 27, 2008

Listen Listen Font Size a+ a-

‘Death toll stands at over 35’

New Delhi, Aug 26: Azaadi is the primary demand in Kashmir and the total loss of life during the two periods of curfew stands at over 35, says findings of a six-member team from four human rights organizations.

The report released on Tuesday here said the team arrived in Srinagar on 22 August and witnessed the massive protest meeting at the Idgah grounds.
“People gathered there publicly declared their primary demand for Azaadi (freedom) at the meeting venue and through numerous street processions in various streets of Srinagar on 22 and 23 August.

During our interviews with individual families and with groups, people voiced the same demand. A wide range of social and political organisations have also reiterated this demand,” said the report by People’s Democratic Forum (PDF), Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC), Andhra Pradesh, Jammu Kashmir Coordination for Civil Society (JKCCS), Jammu and Kashmir and People’s Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR), Delhi.
The team conducted an investigation into the “economic blockade” in Kashmir and its aftermath. The team toured the districts of Srinagar, Budgam, Varmul, and Bandipora.

The main findings by the team also referred to use of curfew to create a confrontation, “The second time curfew was imposed with the express purpose of preventing the dharna at Lal Chowk. The previous gathering at Idgah, where this dharna was announced, had been peaceful. Therefore curfew became the means by which a confrontation was created, which could have been easily avoided. The clamping down on media and the brutal attacks on journalists happened while the team was still there. Arrests of leaders, raids of homes and intimidation of local residents by the army and CRPF are happeningeven now,” the report said.

In another revelation, the team found that there was deliberate blockade of supplies and its indifferent handling. The report mentions name of many who were refused ambulance service. “Imran Ahmed Wani who was injured in the Bagi Mehtab firing on 12 August was deliberately refused ambulance service for nearly two hours. In fact, when he did get into one, it was attacked at Rambagh bridge. He was declared dead on arrival at the hospital”.

“What is unbelievable is the attack on SMHS Hospital on 11 and 12 August successively.”

The team was told that the funeral procession of Ishfaq Ahmed Kana, shot dead at Qamarwari Chowk, Srinagar on 11 August, to the Eidgah Martyrs Memorial was attacked by the CRPF with lathis [batons].

In most cases, the families have not registered any FIRs against the forces as they fear going to the police station or that it would invite further violence. Where families of those killed were able to go to police stations after many days, they found that FIRs were already lodged stating that the protestors attacked security forces who in turn were forced to open fire.
“When families tried to get their version recorded, the same was refused. Complaints are rejected. In the case of the Bagi Mahtab killings where the families of the deceased (Javed Ahmed Mir and Imran
Ahmed Wani) were given a totally false version of the happenings in the FIR. When challenged, the police said that the families must come ten days later with 4 eye witnesses to corroborate their story.

Thisrefusal even to receive complaints is tantamount to making the security forces judges of their own actions.”

The team reports that on 24 August, within a few hours four media persons, on their way to office had been badly beaten up at Rambagh by the CRPF. The identity cards and passes issued during the last phase of curfew presented by the journalists were rejected.

“Essential supplies to Srinagar city, such as medicines, water tankers and milk, have been blocked and this ‘blockade’ has been done at the instance of the CRPF. The entire control of land and order in Srinagar city has all been handed over to the CRPF and news reports have suggested that the local police have also been beaten by the CRPF.”

The investigation team said that the lack of any action against these forces even where the crimes are established by eye-witnesses and reported in newspapers, makes people lose whatever faith in the government that may have remained after decades of army rule.

“Despite these happenings, the people of Kashmir have shown exemplary restraint and ensured that all processions and public gatherings after the lifting of curfew remain wholly peaceful.

This situation should have been utilized to initiate political dialogue instead of the visit by the National Security Advisor,” the report said.

Young generation of Kashmiris want independence from Indian rule

August 26, 2008
Valley youth yearn for azaadi

Srinagar, August 24, 2008

First Published: 23:01 IST(24/8/2008)

Last Updated: 01:28 IST(25/8/2008)

His mother tried to stop 17-year-old Muneeb Shaikh from joining the protest march to the United Nations Military Observers Group (UNMOG) office last Monday. Around 20 people had been killed in police firing across the Valley while participating in similar protests the previous week.

Muneeb symbolises a generation of Kashmiri youth who, while they may share the enthusiasm of their counterparts elsewhere for consumerist goodies and having a good time, are just as keen on azadi as well.Muneeb is a Class XI student at one of Srinagar’s best private schools. “Why should you worry? You have two sons. If one dies, the other will look after you,” he shot back.

“We were mentally prepared for his corpse to be brought home,” said his 53-year-old father Ghulam Shaikh, an employee with a local television channel. Fortunately this particular march remained peaceful and Muneeb got back unscathed.

Muneeb symbolises a generation of Kashmiri youth who, while they may share the enthusiasm of their counterparts elsewhere for consumerist goodies and having a good time, are just as keen on azadi as well. Born during the turbulent, militancy-ridden years of the late 1980s and 1990s, they display a passion for freedom that their parents, after the long years of bloodshed and bitterness in the state, have lost. “More than 90 per cent of the people taking part in these marches are below 25,” Ghulam Shaikh pointed out.

“They are born warriors,” said Mohammed Ishaq Wani, a local college lecturer, who has been observing young people closely for years.

At the forefront of the crowd at last Friday’s rally, following the prayers, were students of Srinagar’s Sri Pratap College. Some of them came zooming in on trendy motorbikes, but freedom from India remained their agenda. “They are our future. They will achieve what we could not,” said Ghulam Mohammad Dar, a 70-year-old shopkeeper Nawakadal watching them.

“This is a generation that has grown up amid the sounds of booming guns and exploding grenades,” said Dr Nazir Mushtaq, psychiatrist at Srinagar’s SMHS Hospital, explaining the young people’s fearlessness. “Lathi charges and exploding teargas shells are commonplace for them. They are not afraid of death.”