NCTC and India’s federal future

Statecraft

HAPPYMON JACOB

The Chief Ministers’ Conference scheduled to take place in New Delhi tomorrow is unlikely to be the venue where the issue of setting up a National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) will be finally settled. Most non-Congress CMs are unlikely to attend the meeting, and even if they attend they may not accept the NCTC proposal even in its new watered-down version. The NCTC saga and its eventual fate, to my mind, is an extremely significant test case that could tell us a great deal about the future of Indian federalism. 

The original NCTC proposal, fiercely opposed by the non-Congress ruled states ranging from Bihar to Tamil Nadu to Gujrat to Tripura, had proposed to locate the NCTC inside the Intelligence Bureau under the Union Home Ministry. It would have the powers to arrest terror suspects anywhere in the country, without prior permission from the state police, and prosecute them. Now imagine a clandestine spy agency, working under the shadows without any accountability, with a ‘glorious’ history of doing the errands of the ruling party in New Delhi, being tasked with arresting and persecuting powers through the length and breadth of the country? The proposed intelligence czar is to be provided with a number datasets containing intelligence collected by various other agencies. All of this will undoubtedly be put to service for ‘political intelligence’ gathering by the ruling party. 

Under severe attack and informed critique from the opposition parties and concerned citizens, the government has now proposed a revised NCTC blueprint. As per the new proposal, NCTC will be directly under the MHA and not under the command of the IB and a nodal officer will be appointed in each State, who could be its police chief, for keeping the States informed of any anti-terror operation. Even this is unlikely to pass the coalition test tomorrow. The UPA government is under Manmohan Singh is simply not in a political position to form any sort of national consensus on the NCTC issue. 
My primary problem with proposals such as the NCTC is that they tend to be anti-people and worryingly less accountable. I am perplexed by the argument often made by those who support extraordinary measures to handle terror: “when terrorists attack with most sophisticated weapons, the state should be allowed to put in place extraordinary measures to address it”. It is ridiculous to equate the state and terrorists. State, and the society that lies at the heart of it, is supposed to be more civilized and enlightened than the terrorists and hence their tools and means to counter terror should be people-friendly and fair, and pass the twin tests of natural justice and modern jurisprudence. 

The supporters of draconian laws to tackle terror also remind us from time to time that we should not politicize the fight against terror. But consider this: whenever there is a terror strike in the country, no matter where, the local police and various Central agencies make it a point to pick up a few muslim youth accusing them of being the masterminds behind the attacks. If they are lucky, the arrested – having undergone humiliation, torture and loss of employment, forget about the terrible years in prison - will be let off by the courts years later for lack of evidence. No compensation offered, no apologies tendered nor are those who made false arrests - and secured promotions and awards for their valorous fight against terror - made accountable. If this is not politicization of the fight against terrorism, what is? Hence, discussion on how and with what we should fight terror is politicization in the right way. 
Given this abysmal record of the state and Central governments’ fight against terror, we should have more than some politically-managed consensus on the issue of NCTC but there should also be wide ranging consultations with various civil society and human rights organisations on an important issue such as this before putting in place such drastic measures. 

Indeed, as mentioned above, the ongoing debate about NCTC would also have deeper implications for the country’s foreign/defense/security policies. To a lot of people, the very fact that the Central government is unable to bring together the state governments to enact the necessary legislation to set up the NCTC is indicative of the deeper policy paralysis that the country is witnessing today. Is it? The fact that the state Chief Ministers are speaking up and against NCTC, they argue, shows that the country will no longer be able to have a coherent policy on counter terrorism, security sector reforms, intelligence gathering, national defence, all of which are crucial for the continued existence of the country. How accurate is tis argument? 

I am an advocate of true federalism wherein the constituent units of a country are consulted and effectively participate in all important aspects of policymaking for the country as a whole, especially when it has something to do with the domestic space and politics of the country. Notwithstanding my inherent suspicion about anything that has a centralizing feature, I think the participation of state leaders and local politicians and other concerned parties in the policy making of the country will only lead to more democratization and accountability which will make the Indian state more representative and people-friendly in the longer run.  India is too huge a country to have one single opinion on any given issue and by not consulting the varied constituencies, especially the elected ones at the local level, the Central government would only be thrusting totalitarian solutions down the throats of a deeply divided polity.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, 14 APRIL 2013, URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2013/Apr/14/nctc-and-india-s-federal-future-14.asp )

Decoding Delhi

Decoding New Delhi’s UNHRC vote against Colombo

Statecraft

HAPPYMON JACOB

New Delhi’s decision to vote in favour of a US-sponsored resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) condemning Sri Lanka for its human rights violations against Tamils during the last phase of Sri Lanka’s civil war needs to be carefully analyzed, as this is symbolic of a new normative turn in India’s foreign policy. India’s anti-Colombo vote might, at first, appear to be no more than UPA government's policy of appeasement towards its coalition partner (DMK) in Tamil Nadu, but an in-depth analysis would suggest that there is a carefully calibrated normative turn in New Delhi’s contemporary foreign policy with clear implications for the country’s future policies, both internal and external.

Domestic political compulsions 
Of course, domestic political compulsions played a major role in determining whether or not India would vote against Colombo for the latter’s violations of the rights of it’s Tamil population. For a lot of analysts, this does not augur well for the future of Indian foreign policy: I disagree with them. I am convinced that the ability of the country’s regional politics (regional leaders, political parties and state governments) to influence the conduct of New Delhi’s foreign/defense/security/diplomatic policies is indeed good for the country, in the longer run. Foreign/security policy making should no longer be a prerogative of the career bureaucrats sitting in New Delhi (politicians are mostly unconcerned about the daily conduct of the country’s foreign and security policy as they are embroiled in bigger domestic political games): states and regions concerned and affected by certain policies should be able to veto the passage of such policies.  New Delhi should consult and seek advice from the country’s peripheries on its external policy and regions should insist on being heard by New Delhi. Such organic mainstreaming of the country’s peripheries will only prove to be good for the country as a whole.

Impact of systemic pressures 
New Delhi’s foreign/diplomatic policies are not just a reaction to domestic politics but also a carefully thought-out response to the various systemic pressures/influences. No country can live in isolation from the international system. India’s status as a rising power would requite it to be more responsive to the international system and the systemic and sub-systemic balances of power therein. India’s recent voting behavior in various global forums on human rights-related issues (Iran, Libya, Syria and now Sri Lanka) shows that India’s strategic partnership with the US and its Western allies does have an impact on its voting decisions. But then, given the multifarious domestic political compulsions, New Delhi cannot afford to be dictated purely by the international system. It will have to play the ‘two-level game’, to use a phrase from the writings of political scientist Robert Putnam, in a sophisticated fashion. Sometimes a country’s domestic opposition/politics actually helps it to ward off the pressures from the international community. 

New Delhi’s Normative turn?
States change their policies not only as a result of strategic calculations but also due to the assimilation of new global norms and increased ‘state socialisation’. I have long argued that India (especially its middle class), not just New Delhi, is on a new learning curve and has been socializing itself with the international system and assimilating global norms and values. What is interesting about this is that for a long time the international community tired to forcefully socialize India and make the latter abide by the former’s norms and values using coercive instruments such as economic sanctions, technology denial and various ‘naming and shaming’ tactics. India rejected such moves with equal force. 

But today, the international community is far more willing to talk to India as an equal partner and has been persuading India using less intrusive instruments such as strategic partnerships, mainstreaming India into the international system at India’s own pace etc. This seems to be working as India is clearly responding to such positive moves by the international community. More importantly, New Delhi’s aspiration to be a great power is also playing a crucial role in determining the contours of its approach to the international community including its voting behavior in multilateral forums. Human rights is a crucial aspect of this global normative order and New Delhi realizes that without assimilating the crucial elements of the existing global normative order, it would find it difficult to mainstream itself or become a great power.

Implications for Kashmir? 
If the above description is an accurate portrayal of India’s new engagement of the international system, then this also has implications for the country’s domestic politics and internal conflict resolution strategies. The opposition from BJP and some other opinion makers to New Delhi’s anti-Colombo vote at the UNHCR is indicative of that. They fear that the Indian vote against Sri Lanka could one day come home to bite India on the question of Kashmir. This fear is not wholly misplaced. Now that New Delhi has opted to make a normative argument on human rights violations favouring the international community’s normative assertions, it is possible that the same standards will apply to India as well. Now that India has talked about human rights violations in other parts of the world and has, as a result, supported the international community’s intervention in the internal affairs of other countries (Libya and Syria are also good examples here), same questions can potentially be asked of India as well. 

Should one be concerned about that? I don’t think so. In a sense, I believe that given the fact that the new normative turn in India’s foreign policy is a result of its increasing assimilation of the global norms and values, it will also have an impact on India’s behavior towards its internal conflicts and will force it to be more accommodative and conciliatory in its internal conflict resolution processes and strategies.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, 24 March 2013. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2013/Mar/24/decoding-delhi-5.asp )

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 )