Why Modi cannot be my leader

Statecraft

HAPPYMON JACOB

The recent decision of the student organisers at the Wharton Business School to disinvite Gujrat Chief Minister Narendra Modi to its India Economic Forum meeting has revived the debate on the desirability of having Modi as India’s next Prime Minister. It does not, of course, surprise me when rabid right-wingers or members of the BJP hail Narendra Modi as the next Prime Minister of India. What does surprise me, and indeed disappoints me, is when liberal, secular Indians who swear by modern liberal values are willing to take a relook at Narendra Modi arguing that “come on, the past is past, let’s give the man a chance”. Increasing number of retired Civil servants, accomplished academics, distinguished journalists and members of the think tank community in Delhi, who once wore Gandhian values and Nehruvian secularism on their sleeves, are now rethinking their attitude to Narendra Modi. 

Modi’s new apostles One of the reasons why there is a newfound sympathy and admiration for Narendra Modi and his brand of politics is because New Delhi’s elites who matter in the country’s opinion formation (members of the strategic, business, think tank and retired elites) have started smelling power! Whenever a new leader or a political ideology is on the ascendance, there are opportunistic elites who necessarily jump on the bandwagon. When the NDA/BJP came to power in New Delhi under the Prime Ministership of A. B. Vajpayee in 1996 for thirteen days, one could see the same overnight ideological transformation of this opportunistic elite in New Delhi. It is interesting to watch the process of transformation of these elites: they coin new phrases to in support of the new leader, sit in fierce criticism of the arguments they were holding dear for years together knowing that a change is inevitable, create sophisticated and rational arguments to tailor the ideological needs of the new regime/leader, create arguments which could potentially align with the supposed stances of the rising leader and start defending the emergent leader in full public view. 

I keep meeting such neo-converts to Moditva from time to time. These yet-to-be-christened apostles of Modi have already started showing an extraordinary amount of zeal and excitement in promoting the ‘gospel according to modi’ to take India towards a new future. This discursive strategy, adopted by the elites is, indeed, an old game practiced by bureaucrats and hangers-on in the corridors of power everywhere. 

The conversions themselves may not be much of a concern, but the discursive effect that it would have on the public sphere is something one must watch very carefully. The well-oiled and extremely effective propaganda campaign run by the traditional supporters of Hindutva and Modi’s new apostles have the ideational power to dominate the this country’s debates and discussions on a wide range of issues from governance to security. 

He is a changed man! So what?
The neo-converts to ‘moditva’ argue that Modi is a changed man today and he is actually ashamed of what happened in 2002. He has made up for his failings in 2002 by forging alliances with Muslim communities in Gujrat and economically developing the state. This, to my mind, is a deeply dangerous line of argument. If this argument is acceptable, then any violator of human rights can be exonerated and be elected to be the Prime Minister of the country provided he is willing to make amends in other fields. That is surely not good enough. Anyone who violates the rights of others or even supports/justifies mass murder should be shunned, and no amount of repentance or ‘making up’ for the misdeeds should make him/her eligible for the country’s top job. Justice should not be measured on the basis of one’s repentance post-facto, but on the basis of whether the doer of the crime has been adequately punished. 

I don’t think Modi regrets the Gujrat riots and his role in it and even if he does, I will continue to maintain that he is not fit enough to the leader of this country. He may be a changed man today. So what? Those perpetrated the mass murder of muslims in Gujrat are yet to be broguth to justice.  If Mr. Modi, even if one goes by the argument that he ‘did not directly participate in the riots’, has not been able to bring justice to the families of those perished in the carnage of 2002, how can anyone expect him to deliver justice and welfare to the whole of India? Consider the fact that a number of cases relating to the Gujrat riots were tried outside the state due to the lack of cooperation from the state administration!  

The ‘larger good’ argument The other argument in support of Modi is that while he may have wronged a certain community, he has ever since been working for the welfare of the state in a committed manner. In other words, the majority has benefitted from Modi’s administration. First of all, I don’t buy the argument that Modi has delivered good governance in Gujrat. To give an example, people in Gandhinagar say that the city has good roads, adequate water supply and no electricity shortage. However, interior Gujrat gives you a completely different picture. In any case, even if the ‘larger good’ argument is correct, the fact remains that caring for the welfare of the majority after having sacrificed the rights of the minority is no noble deed. 

Authoritarians are not good for democracy From what we know of Mr. Modi, he is an authoritarian ruler. He dislikes dissent, has overseen a police force that has carried out a number of extra-judicial killings, uses official machinery for self-image promotion, undemocratic in the manner he runs the administration and equates his political survival with the pride of Gujrat. When a leader starts equating himself with the nation, we must be very careful. More importantly, Modi is a deeply polarizing figure. As it is we have enough polarizing figures in our national politics and the general experience that we have of such figures and their politics is that they are rarely good for democracy in a multi-national country such as India. Messiahs, spiritual or political, have a tendency to turn themselves into tyrants in the course of time. Thanks to the restless efforts of the Sangh propaganda machine, business tycoons with profit motives and New Delhi’s neo-converts to moditva, Modi could emerge as the leader of this country. Even as one hopes that it does not happen, one must be cautious about the spread of moditva and the increasing number of conversions to his ideology and cause.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, March 10, 2013. Url: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2013/Mar/10/why-modi-cannot-be-my-leader-24.asp )

The making of a state of exception

Statecraft

HAPPYMON JACOB

Kashmir never runs out of controversies: the Central and State governments are competing with each other to make sure that they find a way to inflame passions in Kashmir, one way or another.  The JK Police Bill-2013 scheduled to be tabled in the next session of the J&K state Legislative Assembly is the latest example. Among many objectionable provisions, the Bill proposes to create Special Security Zones (SSZ) within the state giving police “special powers” to deal with “abnormal” situations. 

Enough has already been said about the appalling specifics of the draft Bill and hence I do not wish to add to the litany of complaints. In short, the Bill envisages converting J&K into a police state where police officers will have the ability to wield unparalleled powers over the lives of ordinary citizens. The Home Minister of the state, who also happens to be the Chief Minister, claims that his government has done a virtuous thing by putting the draft Bill on the Home Ministry’s website for feedback.  Much appreciated, but will the thoughtful Chief Minister please tell us how come such a thoughtless, careless and anti-people Bill was even allowed to be drafted, endorsed by the top brass, and put on the Ministry’s website without even showing it (really?) to the Minister concerned? How on earth can such idiotic laws be contemplated in the first place and then put in black and white right under the watchful eyes of a Chief Minister/Home Minister who demands day in and day out that anti-people legislation such as the AFSPA should be abolished from his state? Either his Babus are taking him for granted or he did not understand the implications of what he was signing on! 

This proposed law is clearly symbolic of an alarming tendency exhibited by the governments in Srinagar and New Delhi to exercise more and more control over the lives of the Kashmiris without being adequately accountable for it. While the proposed law, if enacted, will have special and overarching powers to control Kashmiris and their lives, what it offers in terms of accountability on the part of the J&K police is merely a promise to ‘act in good faith’. Incidentally, AFSPA also offers protection from prosecution for security forces ‘acting in good faith’. Its time that New Delhi and Srinagar realized that Kashmiris have had enough of their ‘acts in good faith’ and what they need now is accountability from those who control their lives. 

The state of exception
Giorgio Agamben, a widely regarded European Philosopher argues, in his book State of Exception, that “the voluntary creation of a permanent state of emergency (though perhaps not declared in the technical sense) has become one of the essential practices of contemporary states, including the so-called democratic ones”. Contemporary Kashmir, which seems to represent a political-legal vacuum where normal laws, rights, constitutional remedies, and governmental accountability applicable to other parts of the country do not seem to apply, fits well with Agamben’s depiction of a ‘state of exception’. While still very much within the Indian sovereign space, Kashmir is a ‘state of exception’, not merely characterized by the application of extraordinary legal provisions but also embedded in the popular political imagination in India. Kashmiris are increasingly condemned to live in a state of exception and emergency by the ever-increasing use of extra-constitutional means of coercion: its citizens are dealt with by special laws, and the local government, under AFSPA, is not empowered to take action against those who violate the rights of its citizens nor can the violators of their rights be tried in civilian courts. The J&K government also has put in place special measures to deal with the people (DAA & PSA), and often refuses to entertain complaints about excesses committed by officials in exercising those special measures. As a result, entire categories of citizens are kept out of ordinarily applicable rights and privileges. 

AFSPA has been in force in many parts of the J&K state for over two decades now.  It is absurd and surely not borne out by facts that emergency conditions have been prevailing in the state for over two decades! Clearly, this is indicative of a tendency on the part of the Indian state to regularize exceptions. For those in power, nothing is better than a situation where emergency laws can be applied at will with no questions asked, no constitutional challenges faced, and no accountability demanded. Better still if it can be done under the guise of preserving national security. Indeed, the manner in which a ‘state with special status’ has over the last six decades been converted into a ‘state of exception’ shows how democratically elected states can exhibit extreme authoritarian tendencies. 

Collective conscience and the state of exception 
In democracies, application of emergency provisions would normally attract widespread criticism except, of course, when such provisions are meant for certain parts of the country where the application of emergency measures are deemed to be tolerable by the majority population for their security and wellbeing. Toleration of limited violence against ‘the other’ for the pursuit of collective good, sadly, is an emerging characteristic of modern democracies. ‘Collective conscience’, we know, could easily be majoritarian, parochial and hence incognizant of the predicaments of the minorities and fringes of the nation. In a sense, it is this welfare of the majority that the Supreme Court of India referred to when it said while confirming Afzal Guru’s death sentence that “the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if the capital punishment is awarded to the offender”. 

It often takes massive protests on the streets of Kashmir and the deaths of scores of Kashmiris for the ‘collective conscience’ of the nation to wake up and ask what has gone wrong there. Sometimes, even when it witnesses what happens in Kashmir, the country’s ‘collective conscience’ is far from morally outraged. Most people simply believe that the emergency provisions in force should continue and that they will one day stabilize Kashmir. Since the Northeast of India does not often take to streets in a coordinated manner, much of the country does not even know that there are states of exception in existence in it’s northeastern fringes. Such ‘national indifference’ to states of exception within the country’s sovereign space is often a result of portraying those dwelling in those states of exception as the problematic other.  Kashmir, for instance, is often portrayed as a war zone, its inhabitants as terrorists, and throwing stones at gun-wielding security forces as an act of war in the Indian popular imagination. 

(Source: March 3, 2013. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2013/Mar/3/the-making-of-a-state-of-exception-64.asp )

Apology from an Indian

I am ashamed and feel a deep sense of guilt

Statecraft

Killing Afzal Guru was a political act, one that clearly fails the scrutiny of modern jurisprudence. As an Indian, empathiser of the Kashmiri cause for self-respect and azadi and a staunch believer in the fundamental rights of fellow humans and a teacher whose job it is to teach my students that human rights should supersede petty, parochial political interests, I apologise to the family of Afzal Guru who has been put to death by the medieval mindset of the Indian state. I am ashamed and feel a deep sense of guilt for the manner in which the Indian state has gone about hanging Afzal Guru, in flagrant violation of all norms of natural justice and due process laid down in law. 

I am not a Kashmiri, as my readers have known for long, nor do I live in Kashmir. But my relationship with Kashmir is based on my conviction that Kashmir is symbolic of everything that is wrong with the Indian state. In other words, to see what is wrong with the idea of India, one only needs to look at the predicament of Kashmir and Kashmiris. Kashmiris have been accused of being terrorists, supporters of an ‘enemy state’, killed and buried in ‘unmarked graves’, and denied the right to freely move around in the rest of the country, among many other things. And successive governments of India have had a role to play in creating this predicament for the people of Kashmir. 

I also apologise to the people of Kashmir whose normal lives are shut down by the state and central governments at the slightest whiff of trouble even whenthe troubles themselves are a creation of those in power. You have had to suffer the consequences of the numerous misdeeds and lack of political wisdom of the governments. I simply can’t fathom how killing one of you (Afzal Guru) in such a hastyand irresponsible manner can ‘satisfy the collective conscience of the Indian nation’! The UPA government seems to assume that the Indian citizens are thirsting for the blood of Kashmiris in order to achieve a sense of collective wellbeing: no, we are not. We are better than that. The fact is, like you all, we also wish that our government focused on the need to put in place systems and mechanisms so that we are not randomly killed, looted, raped, falsely arrested etc. rather than go about accusing people of being terrorists on flimsy grounds and then kill them on even flimsier ones. Please don’t blame us for our government’s lack of political imagination though you can blame us for electing governments such as this.  

Afzal Guru’s death is unlikely to help the Sonia-led Congress regain power in 2014, but it will surely help increase the psychological distance between New Delhi and the Kashmir valley. Even as I think that a system built around collective responsibility and checks and balances is healthy for a modern Republic, the manner in which the various arms of the Indian stateplayed ‘musical chairs’ with the life of a Kashmiri is appalling. The President of India put the ball in the court of the Home Minister who shifted the blame back to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court blamed the collective conscience of people for its judgment. And the Prime Minister simply feigned complete ignorance of any of it. In Kashmir, the Chief Minister, having clearly been informed of the killing at least ten days in advance did nothing at all till,of course, he knew that this could be his undoing in the next Assembly elections. Even more interesting was the age-old ‘good cop-bad cop’ game played by the father-son duo of Kashmir’s first family. Mind you, its not just the government in New Delhi that takes you for a ride, even your own local government does it so royally every now and then. 

What the Congress party had in mind when it decided to do what it did was merely gaining political mileage by putting the BJP on the defensive with regard to the terror question. Sadly, this is not a party that has learned to respect human rights of the people of India and they proved that beyond any doubts in Punjab, Northeast, Kashmir and in Delhi itself in 1984. I am sorry that our government formed by the Congress-led UPA does not understand the meaning of an inclusive India. Politics and governance, for this government, is of mere instrumental value. It simply doesn’tunderstand the emotional and sentimental basis of good governance. Nationalism or patriotism, they don’t understand, is not something that can be constructed by the state and given down to the people at large. Any brand of nationalism that is not premised on justice and equality will not survive for too long. 

I am sorry that the government in New Delhi considers Kashmir to be nothing but a law and order problem. Hence, in order to cater to the safety, security and welfare of the rest of India Kashmiris have to be muzzled, bullied and pushed around from time to time, and even killed in some cases. Often, it so looks that we as a nation, and I dare including some sections of the Kashmiri society as well in this categorisation, seem to believe that the lives of individuals can be sacrificed for the good of communities (read: larger political gains). There is an awful tendency in us to prioritise the so-called ‘group rights’ over individual rights without understanding that you can never achieve group rights by sacrificing individual rights. Our Khappanchayats who impose medieval penalties on young couples in order to safeguard the honour of their castes, the 1984 anti-Sikh riots led by the Congress leaders, 2002 Anti-Muslim riots in Gujrat overseen by the state machinery and now the Killing of Afzal Guru are all, in a sense, carried out to satisfy the collective conscience of the society by killing/penalising others.

As an Indian, I apologise to Afzal Guru’s son, Ghalib, who, I am convinced, has deeply been wronged by this reckless political killing by the state. I sincerely hope that he will not grow up thinking that we are all responsible for his father’s death. Ghalib, I am sorry for your loss and Iassure you that your father was a victim of unfortunate political circumstances that currently prevail in this country which we hope will not exist for too long.

(SOurce: Greater Kashmir, February 17, 2013. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2013/Feb/17/apology-from-an-indian-5.asp )

‘Rock on’, Pragaash!

What does it mean to be free?

Statecraft

HAPPYMON JACOB

How long can force, threats of force and social boycotts stop the spread of ideas and arguments? New Delhi did everything it could - naming, shaming and maiming - to banish the azadi sentiments of Kashmiris: clearly, it has failed as azadi continues to remain a popular political sentiment in Kashmir’s heartland. Artistic expressions and ideas are as strong as those of nationalism. Will the opportunistic coming together of Kashmir’s Sarkari Grand Mufti, liberal dissident Mirwaiz, radicals such as Asiya Andrabi and Ali Shah Geelani be able to muffle the Kashmiri youth’s demand for azadi to express themselves? While the CRPF may have no business in Kashmir’s cultural landscape including organizing rock festivals, I will fiercely defend the rights of the three young school-going Kashmiri girls to participate in rock concerts. If we, as a society, don’t defend the rights of our children to sing and dance, there is something fundamentally wrong with us. The silver lining, of course, is that the more Kashmiris I speak to, the more I realize that there is very little support for this ‘silencing act’ inside Kashmir.  

Words as performatives 
In analyzing the ongoing ‘Pragaash’ controversy, some analysts have argued that there is no need to bother with the Grand Mufti’s fatwa as he is not considered to be a major religious figure nor are his words taken seriously by anyone. The problem with this line of thinking is that it stops short of understanding the impact of the spoken word. Words, let us face it, are not merely words. They have to be seen and understood as ‘performatives’ or actions in themselves. If words are understood as actions, then words spoken by those with the ability to influence and mold the opinions of others will have even more seriousness and consequences. While one might choose to ignore the words of the Grand Mufti, the words of liberal, young leaders such as the Mirwaiz have the power to influence the minds of people which then result in certain actions. 

The embedded illiberalism of the Fatwa 
Notwithstanding the fact that telling people not to sing is illiberal enough, what is even more illiberal and indeed profoundly patriarchal is the fact that there is a deep-seated gender bias in the campaign against Pragaash. The self-appointed conscience-keepers of Kashmir’s morality were not unnerved when Kashmiri boys played rock music. Only when the Kashmiri girls started doing the same did they realize the indecency and the threat to Islam in it. What is to be noted, as many analysts have pointed out, is that there is a clear emphasis on the ‘girls’ morality’ by the anti-Pragaash brigade. Hence the Kashmiri girls are not merely deprived of the opportunity to express their artistic talents but also deeply discriminated against. How can the Mirwaiz demand that he be heard by the world and New Delhi when he clearly deprives the children of his community of their to be heard? 

Azadi from repressive ideas and ideologies 
Azadi is a laudable virtue and the consistent fight for it is even more laudable. But azadi is not just a political rallying point, it has to do with every aspect of a community’s existence - political, emotional, cultural etc. Hence, while the Kashmiri struggles for political azadi, he/she should also fight for azadi from the clutches of repressive ideas, ideologies, leaders, and worldviews. How can you fight for azadi when your very thinking and politics have run counter to the fundamental imperatives of azadi? How can your demand for azadi be legitimate in the eyes of the world, whose conscience you so often invoke, when you delegitimize the freedom of expression of the children of your community? Azadi will surely become an unviable political call the moment it becomes a restrictive, discriminatory tool of political convenience at the hands of its vanguard.

Why jail youngsters?
The Omar government has a habit of going for the overkill. Media reports suggest that a number of school-going youngsters have been booked by the J&K police for threatening Pragaash on facebook. Not only that such police action makes absolutely no sense for the simple fact that youngsters have impressionable minds and they tend to react emotionally when people in authority make emotional arguments about religion and culture.  How on earth can the J&K police jail school students for what they have written on facebook when indeed this is a direct result of the provocative statements made by some people who assume moral and religious authority? Minors should at best be warned, not jailed. But then what can you expect of a government that justifies the incarceration of minors under the Public Security Act? 

Is Kashmir being Talibanised?Of course not, and the people of Kashmir will tell you that. Kashmir is a victim of too many protectors. It is an overprotected society: while some people protect it in the name of national security and public safety, some others protect it in the name of morality and religious piety. The ordinary Kashmiri merely wants to live like a normal human being, with simple pleasures and ordinary dreams. It is the guardians- local, national, religious, moral etc. – who try to demonise Kashmir, Kashmiris and the other. And despite all this, Kashmir will continue to be a liberal society. 

Freedom of speech and its discontents 
Let us not miss the irony here. The most ironical spectacle of the past week has been the self-righteous Indian media’s unrelenting battle cry for freedom of speech in Kashmir.  While that is surely a noble cause, they habitually forget about Kashmir’s consistent demand for ‘freedom from fear’ which, in a sense, forms the basis for all other kinds of human freedom. For the most part, the mainstream Indian media defines the genuine aspirations of Kashmiris in terms of what contributes to the national interest of the Indian state. 

Finally, a caveat. If the argument is about how to negotiate modernity and alien cultures in Kashmir’s local politico-cultural space, which indeed is a necessary debate, then the tenor of the debate has to be drastically different. But let us be clear that in this age and era, no society/culture can afford to be an island; we will have to learn to accept the other, assimilate the values of the other, promote one’s own, and tolerate cultural mutations, even as preserving the core elements of what we are and what defines us. There is no getting away from that. 

(Happymon Jacob teaches at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)

In the name of Khan

Statecraft

HAPPYMON JACOB

The recent controversy and the politics thereafter in the name of Shah Rukh Khan was triggered by an article entitled “Being a Khan” that the Bollywood actor wrote in the Outlook magazine in January 2013. Pakistan’s half-witted Interior Minister Rehman Malik, obviously without having read the article, offered an unsolicited piece of advice to the Indians: “He (Shahrukh) is born Indian and he would like to remain Indian, but I will request the government of India (to) please provide him security”. The actor clarified saying that he is safe and secure in India. The Indian Home Secretary responded to Pakistan, “We are capable of looking after the security of our own citizens. Let him (Rehman Malik) worry about his own.” To add fuel to fire, the Chief of Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind, Mahmood Madani said, “It is better to die than to live a life with the support of Pakistan.”

This might look like a straightforward and sequential narration of a recent controversy that is no more the headline of the day. Since this column is late by a day this week, I have had some free Sunday time to deconstruct the politics that lies beneath this otherwise inconsequential controversy. Of course, I am reading into it, but then that’s what I do for a living. 

The politics of competitive protection
The Khan controversy is nothing new in the India-Pakistan context. A considerable amount of Indians and Pakistanis revel in pointing out that the minorities on the other side of the border are unsafe, that they would be better served if they were elsewhere (meaning if they crossed over), and often offering unsolicited protection to those “persecuted” by the other side. Of course, those indulging in this politics of competitive protection do not bother with what might happen to the minorities once they become the enemy country’s object of protection. The Pakistani offer of protection to the Indian Muslims and the return offer to Pakistani Hindus by the Indian side have only made their lives worse. More importantly, there is a need to take a step back and ‘read further into’ this protection offer from a sociological point of view. Legendary historian Charles Tilly argued that governments are in the habit of running ‘protection rackets’. Governments extract resources from people in exchange of giving them protection from dangers which, Tilly famously observes, are often imaginary or are created by the governments themselves by their own activities. Those Indian and Pakistani leaders who are in the ‘business of offering protection’ to select audiences on the other side should consider for a moment whether their own actions are contributing to insecurity and danger for those they are offering to protect. 

Politics of ownership
There is also a politics of ownership that is being played out here. When the Pakistani statesmen talk about protection for Kashmiris and other Muslims in India and when Indians talk about the need to protect Hindus in Pakistan, what they are actually doing is symbolically crossing the border to own a part of the other country’s construction of the self. Making sure that the objects of their concern, Kashmiris, Muslims and Hindus, are indeed safe is really not their objective, and we know that for sure from history. Consider, for instance, the fact that both India and Pakistan have killed scores of Kashmiris in the name of protecting them! 

Politics of hate 
Lurking under the politics of protection is also the politics of hate. The Shiv Sena which lost no time in responding to Rehman Malik, has in the past threatened Shah Rukh Khan, more than once. In 2010, for instance, when Shah Rukh, himself a IPL team owner, argued that Pakistani players should allowed to play in IPL games and that 'Mumbai belongs to all Indians', the Shiv Sena asked Shah Rukh to apologise or face the consequences. How ironical it is then that they are today claiming that “the Indian government is capable of protecting its citizens”. Wonder who will protect Shah Rukh from the Siv Sena! 

On the other side of the border the Jamaat-ud Dawa (JuD) chief Hafiz Saeed invited Shah Rukh back to his ‘original homeland’ so that he could be safe there. That this comes from a man whose ideology and designs have killed scores of Indians and Pakistanis, including Muslims, shows the irony of the politics of hate.

Politics of symbolic protection
Another famous American historian, Frederic Lane, examining the interlinked development of war making, state making, and capital accumulation, argued that the “governments are in the business of selling protection ... whether people want it or not”. Indeed, this is precisely what we are seeing today where some overzealous and over-concerned Pakistanis are offering protection to Shah Rukh Khan, Indian Muslims and even to the Kashmiris even when the ‘objects of their protection’ do not want it. 

The government of India justifies the stationing of the Indian armed forces in Kashmir and the continuation of special legal provisions such as the Public Safety Act, Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the Disturbed Areas Act on the basis of the need to provide protection to the people of Kashmir when the Kashmiris do not need or want such protection, and have consistently made that argument clear to the government in New Delhi. The problem is that governments, including the one in New Delhi, are so used to the logic and rationale of ‘protection business’ that they ‘force’ protection on people without bothering to ask the people what their real aspirations/needs are. What is even more unfortunate is that this “uncalled for” protection itself is responsible for the insecurity of the Kashmiris.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, February 5, 2013. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2013/Feb/5/in-the-name-of-khan-16.asp )

Verma Committee’s AFSPA Rrecommendations

Statecraft

HAPPYMON JACOB

Kashmiri leaders, both mainstream and dissident, have hailed Justice J. S Verma Committee’s report on Amendments to the Indian Criminal Law, and rightly so. While human rights violations in Kashmir in general and molestation of Kashmiri women in particular hardly provoke the conscience of the Indian middle class, the Verma Committee, constituted to pacify the anger of the powerful Indian middle class, has brought to light the need to be concerned about the dignity of women in conflict areas such as Kashmir and the immorality and irrationality of legal instruments like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). 

I have just finished reading the 600 plus-page long report submitted by the Verma Committee and I hope that this is indeed the beginning of a number of much-needed legal, judicial, administrative and police reforms in this country. The only concern is that numerous commissions and committees in the past have submitted reports and recommendations to the Government of India on each of these issues but not many recommended reforms have been carried out. Commissions and their recommendations are often used as time-buying strategies by the ruling regimes, and the people of Kashmir are well aware of that. 

On the question of AFSPA the Verma committee makes the following important observations: “At the outset, we notice that impunity for systematic or isolated sexual violence in the process of Internal Security duties is being legitimized by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which is in force in large parts of our country. It must be recognized that women in conflict areas are entitled to all the security and dignity that is afforded to citizens in any other part of our country….There is an imminent need to review the continuance of AFSPA and AFSPA-like legal protocols in internal conflict areas as soon as possible. This is necessary for determining the propriety of resorting to this legislation in the area(s) concerned”.  A close and careful reading of these statements would reveal that this is a clear indictment of the atrocities committed in placed like Kashmir in the name of national security. 

The politics behind AFSPA abolition 
Over the past few years, the issue of AFSPA abolition has become the centerpiece of political debates in Kashmir. More so, it has also become a bargaining tool in the hands of politicians and various institutional interests in New Delhi and in the Valley. In 2011, when P. Chidambaram was still the Home Minister, there was a great deal of support in New Delhi to do away with the draconian legislation. Both the Home Minister and the Prime Minister seemed to be in favour of removing it from Kashmir while the Defense Minister, keen to pander to the parochial and institutional interests of the Armed Forces, was the only political leader opposed to it (of course, this does not include the Congress leaders in Kashmir such as Saifudeen Soz who have argued in favour of continuing with the controversial piece of legislation). 

What is unfortunate is that even though the infiltration rates have come down from the 2011 levels, New Delhi is still not serious about removing AFSPA from the valley. More so, there is more opposition to the removal of AFSPA today than there was in 2011. With Sushil Kumar Shinde, the new Union Home Minister, arguing during his visit to Kashmir late last year that “I know that peace has returned in Jammu and Kashmir with the consistent efforts of people. But this doesn’t mean that we can take risk and remove the AFSPA immediately”, it is now clear that the opposition to removing AFSPA has yet another strong opponent in New Delhi along with the Defense Ministry and the armed forces. Thanks to the recent LoC flare-up, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is unlikely to say anything in the near future about removing AFSPA. 

Talk is cheap
From Barack Obama to Rahul Gandhi to Omar Abdullah, one thing seems to be common: “preach about change all the time, but never practice it”. Greenhorns in politics tend to climb the political ladder by playing to the revolutionary fantasies of common people. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s occasional statements on AFSPA peppered with anger and outrage, carefully calibrated and nationally televised, should be seen in that light. It is easy talk about the removal of AFSPA as it is easily one of the most popular things to do in today’s Kashmir, but it takes a great deal of political courage to actually do something about it. Omar Abdullah should use all the bargain tactics in the trick book of coalition politics and force the Congress party to heed to the voice of the Kashmiri people. Come the next Assembly election in J&K, there is no doubt that the AFSPA issue will be single most important litmus test of Omar Abdullah’s government’s performance in the state. Or is it that the Abdullah scion is waiting for the elections to approach in order to increase the heat on the AFSPA issue? Wouldn’t that be a bit too late? 

AFSAP, let us face it, continues to be a tool of human rights violations in the valley and it is now duly confirmed by a (Verma) high-level Panel appointed by the Government of India. Late last year, a well-researched report entitled “Alleged Perpetrators - Stories of Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir” put out by the International Peoples Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-Administered Kashmir [IPTK] took pains to examine the issue in great detail. Politicians in New Delhi and Srinagar should read these reports carefully and take steps to remove AFSPA from the valley once and for all.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, January 27, 2013. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2013/Jan/27/verma-committee-s-afspa-rrecommendations-57.asp )

Shootout at LoC: In perspective

Statecraft

HAPPYMON JACOB

The recent India-Pakistan conflict on the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir and the war of words have grave implications for the future of the bilateral ties for the two countries. The conflict along the LoC, while not unprecedented since scores of them take place every year, has escalated due to a combination of factors: the hawkish claims of the Indian media, increasingly outspoken Indian armed forces, the Congress government which is unclear which direction to take the India-Pakistan dialogue process and the characteristic denial of the Pakistani state of what has been done to the dead bodies of the Indian soldiers. While the Central government, unwilling to articulate a clear policy towards Pakistan and follow it up with conviction, is on the back foot on the issue, it is the Chiefs of the Indian Army and Air Force along with a collection of retired military officers, egged on by the media, who seem to be articulating an Indian response to the Pakistani aggression on the LoC.  

New Delhi wanted to continue with ‘business as usual’ with Pakistan, but the Indian military and the overzealous, if not militant, media stalled those plans. This is a clear indication that New Delhi’s Pakistan policy lacks direction, conviction and courage. 

Dangers of conflict escalation
That the senior most military officers in India have chosen to convey to Pakistan that India would not mind “escalating” the conflict if Pakistan does not stop engaging in ceasefire violations is both puzzling and disconcerting. The BJP went on to ask the government to engage in “controlled military response” against Pakistan!” Former BJP minister Yashwant Sinha argued, “Who says that if you have a limited controlled military response then it will necessarily result in war?” These arguments by the military and the Chief opposition party in India seem to sum up the conventional wisdom in the country on the utility of flexible responses in responding to Pakistan in times of crisis.  

Anyone with an elementary understanding of conflict escalation under nuclear conditions would surely refrain from articulating such views for the simple reason that the escalation dynamics under nuclear conditions would be inherently unpredictable and unstable, especially when high-running nationalistic passions dictate defence policies. The fact of the matter is that in nuclear South Asia, flexible options without the risk of a nuclear catastrophe are simply unavailable. The biggest challenge for the leaders of the two sides today is to put in place robust mechanisms that can ensure crisis stability – strong incentives not to carry out a preemptive attack on the adversary in times of crisis of this kind. 

The flag meeting that took place between the two armies is an excellent mechanism to ensure crisis stability so is the hotline between the two DGMOs. However, there is a need to think of more innovative ways of maintaining crisis stability in the region. 

The costs of conflict
While it is clear that there are no winners in this kind of a confrontation, there are clear losers in unfortunate events such as this. In short, what happens in conflicts such as this is the following: minor skirmishes or misunderstandings lead to a militarized crisis, media then drives passions, CBMs are suspended and a war of words ensue, and eventually the conflict is deescalated. Finally bilateral relations are back to how they were before the crisis begun minus, of course, the CBMs that were suspended during the crisis. It takes yet more rounds of negotiations for the CBMs to restart and trust to be built. This ‘one-step-ahead-two-steps-backward’ sequence of events seems to characterize India Pakistan bilateral relations.  

To my mind, India loses from this kind of conflict far more than Pakistan. Why? The fact is that if India wants to become the global power that it would like to, it has no option but to stabilize its fronts. India’s economic growth and rise in its global political power will be severely hampered by what happens in Pakistan and as a result in Kashmir. Hence India would be shooting at its own foot if it tries to break off the peace process and sever relations with the civilian government in Islamabad. The fact is that New Delhi needs Islamabad and GHQ to reign in the terror groups in Pakistan. 

India has also gained more from the ongoing (?) peace process than has Pakistan. There is already a strong feeling in Pakistan that the peace process is more in favour of India than Pakistan and it is being taken forward on India’s terms and conditions. The argument is premised on the facts that the traditionally core issue of political resolution of Kashmir and demilitarisation of Siachen, something that Islamabad and GHQ are very keen to see resolved, are relegated to the backburner and ‘secondary’ issues like trade and easing of visa restrictions, important from the Indian point of view, are being pursued. 

If this argument is true, that is Pakistan has no great interest in seeing this peace process survive in which India has great stakes, then we should recognize that it would be foolish for New Delhi to even consider severing the dialogue process with Islamabad. 

Moreover, if India wants to see genuine political transformation in Pakistan, it should make sure that the hands of the civilian government in Islamabad, one that is going to complete its full term for the first time in the country’s history, is strengthened, rather then weakened, by its actions.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, January 20, 2013. URL: http://greaterkashmir.com/news/2013/Jan/20/shootout-at-loc-in-perspective-30.asp )