Flight of Kashmiri Pandits: The aftershock of destroying civil society
Bharat Bhushan
Representatives of Kashmiri Pandits and anchors on prime time are being more than disingenuous in demanding protest on the streets against the recent targeted killing of Pandits from Kashmir civil society and its political parties. The presumption is that there is still room left for public protest in the Valley. But having been relentlessly cowed down by government measures, public protest will neither be easy to revive, nor will it respond selectively, only to issues where it will suit the government.
Large sections of the Hindu majority in India maintained a strategic silence when Kashmiri civil society activists and media practitioners were locked up on unsubstantiated charges. Even when a gentle soul like Khurram Pervez, coordinator of the Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society was put behind bars, few spoke up. Khurram Pervez worked very closely with Sanjay Tickoo, a Kashmir Pandit leader whose family stayed on in the Valley despite the turbulence of the 1990s and since. Sanjay Tickoo heads the Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti which today is pleading with the judiciary to allow Pandits to flee the Valley.
Anyone in Srinagar would swear that the two social activists – Khurram and Tickoo -- were like peas in a pod, working closely to bring a semblance of sanity to Kashmiri society. With Khurram Pervez in jail and Sanjay Tickoo in hiding under police security, it makes little sense to ask what Kashmiri civil society is doing. It has been frightened, silenced, and criminalised. Having pushed civil society organisations to the wall and poisoned the well of public opinion with communalism, it is pointless to wonder where Kashmiri civil society has disappeared. It has been destroyed, as it has been in the rest of India.
Even beyond Kashmir the media has targeted civil society activists, in cahoots with the majoritarian ruling dispensation. Anyone who dared to speak up for minority rights -- their choice of food, the way they choose to dress, the way they pray or their demand for equality in citizenship laws – has been dubbed anti-national and seditious. They have to face trial both by the law and the media.
Suppressing civil society, however, has been far easier in the highly militarised conflict zone of Kashmir. Action against civil society activists and journalists is justified by suggesting that they are ‘over-ground workers’ or OGWs of militant organisations.
Now when it needs civil society on its side, the State is unable to invent a new “people” and a pliant ‘civil society’ at will. Apparently, the Indian Army, tried to engineer ‘civil society’ protests in Srinagar against growing incidents of violence in the Kashmir Valley recently. An eyewitness report of one such incident (in The Caravan magazine) described the arrival of an army truck at Srinagar’s Pratap Chowk from which soldiers unloaded and put up a hoarding that said “Akhir kab tak (How much longer)?” with hashtags #VoiceAgaisntTerrorism, #StopKillingKashmiris, #KashmirBadalRahaHai and #KashmirForTiranga. It exhorted people to call for unity – “Kashmir, let us unite”. They then apparently lit candles in front of the hoarding, several BJP leaders and retired civil servants in the gathering bowed their heads and an army officer handed out flaming torches to members of the motley crowd cobbled together for the occasion.
Such theatrical enactments are unlikely to revive civil society in Kashmir. Civil society organisations comprise non-governmental organisations (NGOs), independent mass media, think tanks and universities as well as religious and social organisations that come up organically by citizen initiatives in a democracy. Instead of seeking political power for themselves they aim at monitoring and restraining the unbridled power of the State. The word “civil” in civil society, political scientists point out, also implies tolerance of pluralism and diversity. Civil society cannot play a constructive role under the shadow of the gun or where pluralism and democracy are clouded by a revanchist majoritarianism.
Without freedom of speech, the guarantee of a fair trial or freedom to participate in a fair competition of ideas and interests, why will citizens come forward to protest injustices against minorities? That will only endanger their own lives. Despite this, an Imam in Anantnag’s Jama Masjid in his Friday sermon dared to condemn the targeted killings. He reportedly appealed to the majority community in the Valley to denounce the killings and to offer protection to the minority community.
In a similar vein, expressing shock and distress, a prominent business body, the Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industry has publicly declared that violence against innocent civilians was “unacceptable and against humanity.” It claimed that these incidents have “dented the image of Kashmir again” and that they are “against its cultural ethos.” Contrast this with the deafening silence of prominent all India trade and business bodies on the targeting of Muslims in the rest of India by Hindutva goons. Clearly, goodness is not dead in Kashmir yet and the warmth of its glowing embers can still be felt.
Leaders of mainstream political parties in Kashmir could have been important instruments for mobilising public opinion against targeted killing of minorities. However, they have been systematically hobbled and delegitimised by the government in Delhi. Despite this, mainstream political parties in Kashmir have spoken up against the violence. The National Conference, the Peoples’ Democratic Party, and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) among others have unequivocally condemned the attacks on Kashmiri Pandits.
The Modi government’s own fight against violence in Kashmir has been aptly described by Sajjad Lone of Peoples’ Conference as a “people-less fight”, depending only on the bureaucracy and the security forces. Most formal political and informal civil society forums for people to express their views have been shut down or ceased to matter. It is unrealistic to expect them to revive over the matter of Pandit killings. More importantly, can we expect the majority to defend the minority in Kashmir, when Kashmiris can clearly see that the majority does not stick its neck out in the rest of India?
