Think past the present

Masters of the science tell us that “all conflicts are same”. But people in a given conflict prefer to believe that theirs is different. It gives a sense of being special – in a different way. But it hides a deep seated denial; a denial to learn from other conflicts. A comprehensive denial to apply a rational touchstone to the conflict, and benefit from the good practices elsewhere. 

In case of Kashmir, both the ends are steeped deep in this denial. The state that lords over a violent status quo doesn’t want to open up its mind. And the people who resist this status quo are equally reluctant to any rational discussion on the contents of this conflict. The result of all this is the deepening of violence. In this situation there is hardly a possibility for non-violent politics that looks for the resolution of this conflict. 

Looking at the debates going on in some of the think tanks in India, and also the behaviour of the state institutions, the prognosis is extremely poor. It’s scary. Kashmir conflict is accumulating newer forms of violence. Leave aside the historic, legal and political background of this conflict. It’s now becoming a contest, and a battle for existence. There is now an open denial of the very basic human needs. 

Ask the masters of this subject and they tell you that any insult to basic needs is the source of violence. The method applied to silence the people is singularly based on insulting these basic needs; re-looking into the constitutional provisions like Art 35 A is just that – insult to basic needs.

What are these basic needs, without which human dignity ceases to exist. These are, as Galtung tells us, four: Survival, Well Being, Freedom and Identity. All four are under assault. Glatung’s words illuminate this facet of conflict brilliantly: Basic needs “are deeper than values, above values. We can choose our values, and choice is a part of our freedom. Values become part of our identity. ….but basic needs are different. You don’t choose your basic needs; basic needs choose you. It is their satisfaction that makes you possible. If you negotiate away your own or others’ basic needs, you are sentencing yourself or others to a life unworthy of human beings. You are exercising violence. Negotiation is possible where goals and values are concerned, but not with basic needs. Basic needs have to be respected; they are non negotiable. 

If this is the case, where do we go from here. At a rhetorical level it is easy to say that ‘we are pushed to wall’, but what does it mean in reality. It means that this state, and the status quo it imposes on us, is the last realty. There is no escape. Just look into this circular argument once more. It means that the state has a psychological hold over us, and we are faithfully doing its bidding. It means, all I do is what this state wants me to do – sound like collaboration! We fuel the oppressor’s engine with our blood. This is very painful to say, but we must now start talking to ourselves. Clarity is sometimes very cruel, but the path to freedom is illuminated by clarity.

The point is that who needs an exit  from this situation, oppressor or the people who face oppression. This status quo perfectly works to the advantage of the most extremist elements in India. They milk it every morning, and each evening. Why should they want an end to it.  

If our prisoners are subjected to torture, it earns them points in the electoral battle in India. If we are in a state of perpetual siege, they cash it elsewhere in India. If our boys die, they celebrate it openly. In a state of anger we produce psychological response, and this is all our adversary needs. In a nutshell, much of this oppression is manufactured by us. At least we provide the raw material.

To break this status quo is our responsibility. The first thing it needs is to go past these psychological  responses. It is not necessary to announce some spectacular departure. Not at all. But a gradual, incremental change within our society can make the beginning. We can reimagine the people’s struggle against oppression. We can think past violence. But this entails questioning our own ideas, and preparing ourselves for a ruthless  review.

mrvaid@greaterkashmir.com