Let Kashmiris handle it themselves

Radicalisation is not a vague notion; it has its own structure and output. After the Delhi blast of 10/11, Kashmir has come under sharper focus as a place where factories of radicalisation produce and export extremist ideology of killing and getting killed.

This dangerous trend that assumes shape of a phenomenon is born out of faith in extremist ideologies. When the Modi Government says, it has zero tolerance toward terrorism; it also means that it has no tolerance for radicalisation. Terrorism is the trunk of the tree rooted in radicalisation.

Kashmir has been a victim of the notion that it is home to radicalisation which has helped spread radicalisation all across. This sharpened Pakistan’s appetite to bleed India. There, however, is a striking contrast in the reality and the perception - Kashmir has witnessed and experienced countless incidents of terrorism in the past 36 years, and at the same time kept its faith alive in its Sufi culture and traditions.

The place is victim of misperceptions; the narrators have taken full advantage of it in defaming its people. It serves no one’s cause.

The troubling reality, however, is that some radical elements were always active in the region. They pushed hard the narrative of the distinct religious identity and political aspirations. They also lived in denial of the reality of accession of Jammu and Kashmir with India. These elements challenging the Accession were pushed to margins when there was a strong local leadership in Kashmir, driving home the point that the reality of the Accession cannot be changed, come what may.

There was a drift when this pro-India leadership was weakened as an outcome of conspiracies woven by those who had ears of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India. Nehru heeded the conspiracy-theorists and fell prey to the tales of conspiracy weavers unable to reconcile to the democratic set up and the leadership thereof.

All along, Kashmiri Muslims were fed the stories that Pakistan was their natural country, and India, by contrast, a Hindu nation that will not take care of Muslims and their religious freedom and political ambitions. Delhi countered this by citing the Accession. The fact was that the Accession had decided the fate of J&K once and for all, and therefore there can be no question on J&K’s status as an integral part of the Indian Union.

This fact was not consolidated by the emotional outreach. The finality of the accession needed mass public support for all the time. The integration was defended, citing decisive military victories of the Indian army in wars with Pakistan in 1947-1948, 1965 and 1971 and Kargil mini-war of 1999. The thrust was on the military might and outcome of wars in India’s favour. The political and emotional connect was not articulated and supported as it should have been.

Somehow, the military might got embedded into the narrative of Accession, and Kashmir as an integral part of the country. While there is no doubt that the Indian army, from the day one after the accession, defended the territorial integrity, it also left another notion that military was the sole defender of the idea of India in Kashmir. This point needs a reflection in a fair manner.

But somewhere down the line Kashmir’s civil society and political leadership’s role was undermined. Pakistan took advantage of it - radicalisation was used as a tool to widen the gap between Kashmir and the rest of the country.

Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha, without fail, mentions threat of radicalisation in the Valley. His thesis is that few radical elements, though small in number, are opposed to the positive changes in Kashmir of past five-six years, were working to derail the process and progress. This is true. But the question is why these few are succeeding, while the change is not able to prevent these inimical elements from what they were engaged in. Unless that question is addressed, the real causes may remain hidden and the solution may take longer to surface.

Some steps are urgently needed to neutralise radicalisation. The government, in its perception, believes that only hard approach against the terror holds key to decimate this menace. This is good but absent in this approach is mechanism to identify all the elements involved in radicalisation.

There is need to understand the whole dynamics of the radicalisation. It has to be seen in the context of what went wrong till date, and where origins of this extremist ideology lie. Second, there should be check on the rhetoric as the choice of harsh words can complicate situation and keep the machines of radicalisation moving.

First, people of Kashmir should be trusted to deal with this issue. It should be a self-assignment, not the one given by others. The inner need for dealing with this crisis should be encouraged and appreciated. Kashmiris can diagnose the matters more intelligently, and handle deftly. They don’t have to launch exercises and activate intelligence networks to identify the culprits. Their tools lie in their neighbourhood approach. It cannot be matched by anyone else.

Second, the political leadership of the Valley, elected and other, should not be pushed to wall. They have a right to speak for their people, and oppose the actions which they deem run against the spirit of treating J&K at par with other states and UTs in the country. The rule of law has its own norms which should be seen both fair in appearance and action.

Third, a disinformation campaign launched from across the border needs to be countered not in kind by the official channels only. It calls for conditions that enable and encourage the youth in the Valley to become broadcasters of the real situation and the idea of India and its acceptability in Kashmir, defying the traditional tag of Kashmiris being restive against the country that has been taking care of them for decades, while Pakistan conspired to wreck Kashmir’s ethos.

Fourth, the merits of the transformation of Kashmir in the post-abrogation of Article 370 should be left to locals to count and reflect on their bitter and cruel experiences of the past to the positives of today. Essentially, they need to articulate and amplify the secure and safe future of their children. And, for that it is necessary that the vision that was laid for Jammu and Kashmir at the time of declaration of Article 370 as null and void be honoured through dialogue and delivery mantra. Unfulfilled promises will trigger old time narratives which may fuel radicalism. Kashmir’s voices should be heard and responded within the country. That will help Kashmiris to fight the radicalisation to its core.

Fifth, the locals should be encouraged to organise events showcasing the positives that have visited them in the past five-six years. The official intervention and presence should be kept out of it, let these be events of Kashmiris, by Kashmiris and for Kashmiris.