Secularism Through Hostaging Hindus

By Dr. Ajay Chrungoo

The political approach of the establishment on the return of Kashmiri Hindus needs to be properly analysed and understood. The vicious selectivity and duplicity of political class on the issue of return of Kashmiri Hindus is glaringly evident and yet rarely acknowledged.

Aftermath Responses

Let us just ponder over the responses of the state government in the aftermath of the Nadimarg. The Chief Minister stated on April 2 that, "going by the mood of the people of Kashmir against such heineous crimes our coalition government will accelerate the process of normalisation...This would be our response to the situation and a message that such an incident has no public support." Chief Minister had a few days earlier said, "People of Jammu and Kashmir have always kept the flag of secularism high and it is deep rooted in our land”. Such statements were also articulated by various shades of Muslim political establishment. They build the basic assumption that the acts of violence against the Hindu minority in Kashmir valley and elsewhere in the state have no social sanction.

This assumption, however, falls flat on its face when we see the basic argument of the Mufti government and those who advocate an unconditional dialogue with the terrorist regimes. In the words of Chief Minister "every problem has a genesis. I have come to the conclusion that militants are like fish. People's support to them is like water. Take water out and the fish will suffocate and perish".

The government seeks to confine massacres of Hindus as isolated events without public support and yet in the same breath advocates dialogue with terrorist regimes on the premise that public support has to be weaned away from them. This attitude serves a crucial purpose. Muslim political class wants a comprehensive acknowledgment and engagement on separatism without addressing the issues of communalization of Kashmiri Social mileu and its militarisation.

To supplement the same approach another argument is often put forward that the violence against minorities in the state is conducted by the foreign mercenaries. This position does not correlate entirely with the facts as the local involvement in all major gruesome massacres in Kashmir and Jammu has been always decisive. However, if we examine the proposition closely, it will lead us to a different conclusion. It is possible that pockets of local terrorism can operate without a significant societal sanction. Local terrorists need minimum societal involvement to accomplish their deed. However, the foreign terrorists always require adequate societal connivance to be effective. They need hiding places, guides and enough confidence that they will not be betrayed by the locals.

Another crucial aspect of the government response after a gruesome tragedy has been enacted by the terrorists is the usual refrain that these acts are an outcome of frustration. So when violence spilled over into Jammu in a big way we would quite often hear that this was a result of success against the terrorists in Kashmir valley, an act of desperation etc. The argument that Nadimarg massacre was to 'derail' the peace process which the present government has unleashed emanates from the same approach. This approach ultimately delinks the terrorist violence from the continuity of the terrorist campaign. This campaign is not reactionary at all. It has its own military momentum. The approach also seeks to camouflage the reach and sway of terrorist operatives in the state. Nadimarg massacre is one prominent event in a sequence of events in recent times which declare the renewed phase of terrorist violence after a tactical phase of relatively low terrorist activity.

The 'derailing of peace' argument needs to be assessed from another angle as well. The government assertion that its policies of healing touch and good governance have gone a long way in eroding the public support for terrorism, should have made it extremely cautious on the issue of return. The Hindu pockets of presence in Kashmir were the natural targets of terrorist assertion. Was the local administration sensitised to the need for extra vigil and sensitivity to the security demands of minorities in Valley? Did the government hold special sessions of counselling with its administerial set up for the same?

There are other questions also which need to be answered.  What were the assessments of the state government with regard to security needs of local minority population? Did it take seriously reports of induction of fidayeen into state which the local press highlighted prominently from time to time? Was it aware of the fact that thousands of terrorists were being mobilised across the border and have been relentlessly trying to cross into India and if so did it ever at any point review its stand on return of Pandits? Did it ever relate its security doctrines including dismantling of SOG with the release of pressure on LeT and Jaish-e-Mohammad in Pakistan around the same time? And last but not the least did it ever review the security situation in the state with relation to developments in Iraq?

Understanding the callousness

It is more than intriguing why the number of police personnel posted near minority pockets was reduced to less than half in the aftermath of elections? That both the local administration and police took the apprehensions as well as reports of Hindu minority lightly speaks for the sensitivity of the administration in responding to Mufti's experiment of return of Hindus.  Did it ever dawn upon the government that the apparently successful conduct of elections had increased the vulnerability of soft targets to terrorist act?

Far from being an act of isolated callousness the attitude of the local administration should be seen in continuity. Same callousness and insensitivity has been observed before the gruesome tragedies that befell  upon Hindus in Wandhama and Sangrampora. The delegation of Kashmiri Pandit leaders met DC Budgam in the presence of SSP Budgam after the Sangrampora massacre. They enquired from the DC Budgam about the type of measures taken by the local administration to meet the challenge of return of Pandits as was being trumpeted almost daily by the then Chief Minister Dr Farooq Abdullah. Before the DC Budgam would find words to answer the query, the SSP Budgam intervened and said that no meeting had taken place in the Valley to specially discuss the programme of return of Pandits. He said that in fact they had been trying to bring around sixty odd Pandit families in the area to come and live in one place.

Return programme which was conducted now was not done very differently. A hype was created through almost daily statements by those at the helm. Displaced Pandits were ready to go. They had given written undertakings. Displaced Hindus from Mattan and Tulamula are ready to move. Government will rebuild their houses and they will be offered employment incentives back home. Subsequently the changes in the return plan came to the fore. The returning Pandits will not go to their original homes but will be accommodated in specially built quarters in Tulamula and Mattan to provide for better security. Local Maulvis had given their consent and people were ready to welcome them.

As the violence in the state picked up all over, the government started to back track. But before it could do so the Nadimarg massacre happened. And all through while these public expositions were being made, the government complemented the hype by proclamations that since government is committed to return plan therefore press should not publicize it much. Such statements added an element of mystery to the return plan and kept it in focus more intensely than otherwise.

One glaring fact stares upon any keen observe of the "return plans" over a period of time.  This fact is that proclamations about return are basically a Political Posture which Muslim establishment wants to sustain. The underlying content of this political posture needs to be understood. But before we do it let us try to determine the broad features of the 'return formula' as advocated by the present government and compare it with previous such proposals if any.

Content of ‘Return Plan’

The newspapers reported extensively on the content of return formula. "Sayed in a bid to bring Kashmiri Pandits back to Kashmir valley in a phased manner has embarked upon a new plan. He who has already announced that Kashmiri Pandits would be brought in a phased manner and would be settled in Tulamula and Mattan areas of Kashmir valley has been cautiously building bridges with such Kashmiri Pandit organisations who are not hard-liners.... He has already set up a committee under Deputy Chief Minister Mangat Ram Sharma and Financial Commissioner Planning Department Vijay Bakaya and Inspector General of Police (IGP) Kashmir K.Rajendra as its members. As per reports they have already undertaken projects of constructing and rebuilding of infrastructure in Mattan and Tulamulla areas to accommodate of 2000-5000 families". (HT March 1).

These detailed expositions in the press were not a figment of imagination or speculation of an individual journalist. The broadest spectrum of reporting in media corroborated the existence of such a plan. Chief Minister himself gave vent to his understanding on the issue in various public functions and Conversations. The Governor's address also contained references to the return plan. PDP leader Mehbooba Mufti while speaking at the Institute of Strategic Studies where the author was present, gave a detailed account on the return plan. Kashmiri Pandits would be invited to Valley. The government is targeting those Pandits who are really in need and are living in camps and not those who are well settled. Mufti Sayed also made it clear, that “jobs will be provided to displaced youth only in Kashmir valley. He said that multi storied  residential blocks are under construction at Mattan and the previous proposal to shift the displaced people in single storied houses has been abandoned”.

The return plan of the present government was different from that of the previous government in one respect. Farooq Abdullah, just before Sangrampora massacre, actually started his 'return' programme on a coercive note. He threatened the displaced employees with the eventuality of losing their jobs in case they refuse to return. Mufti desisted from issuing such threats. However all other features of his plan were no different from his predecessor.

This 'return programme' addressed the rehabilitation issue in a phased manner. It targeted primarily the village population particularly the desperate ones. The plan envisaged a selective and symbolic return. The government meticulously avoided addressing the issue of displacement and religious cleansing in its entirety. The issue of alienation of Kashmiri Hindus from the Muslim mainstream is not a concern at all. In fact the issue has to be stubbornly suppressed. Kashmiri Hindu concerns about the communalization and militarisation of social milieu of Kashmir Muslims are irrelevant. The reach and sway of Pan Islamic imperatives over Kashmiri population has to be consistently underplayed in the context of Pandit return.

The most peculiar aspect of the 'return plan' of this government as well as its predecessor has been to trivialise genocide of Kashmiri Hindus. A surreptitious campaign of disinformation continues to project that the Kashmiri Hindus left Kashmir more in search for greener pastures and less because of terrorist thrust. They have built houses outside and are economically well off. Why will they choose to return.

The present government is more vocal and abrasive about these postulates. The local daily reported Mufti Mohammad Sayed in the following words, "regretting that some Kashmiri Pandits especially in towns and 'cities' have disposed of their properties Mufti termed it as an unwise step on their part. This has not been done by those Pandits who belong to the villages he said adding that houses of minorities are still existing in villages-No doubt these houses are in a dilapidated condition, this is an indication that they want to return to their houses."

The previous government cosmetically enacted a Prevention of Distress Sales Act at least acknowledging the link between the economic distress to which Kashmiri Hindus were subjected to their sale of properties in Kashmir valley. This government alludes that selling of the property by sections of Kashmiri Hindus is an indication of their lack of commitment to return. Previous government promised jobs to unemployed displaced youth on the condition of undertaking that they will be employed if they return, never to fulfil it. This government brazenly declares, that, "...it is ceased of the problem being faced by the community but he (Mufti) is unable to provide them jobs outside Kashmir...community youth will be absorbed in government services provided they return to the Valley."

Reading these comments with the comments which chief minister made on April 1 we can get a better understanding of the mindset. "Mufti Sayed made... important announcements. First of course was the PDP lead coalition government's decision not to encourage migration of Kashmiri Pandits from any part of the Valley. Second, the state government won't give incentives to those who migrate, incentives will be given to those who stay back in the Valley...!”

The present government clearly states that it has not any intention of fulfilling any responsibility to ameliorate the plight of those who in the eventuality of serious threat might get displaced. The approach aims to present a scenario of ‘between devil and the deep sea’ to those who still are in Valley.

The assertion has also a dangerous allusion that taking care of displaced population in exile is in fact an encouragement for displacement. It reflects the basic character of thinking of Muslims establishment on religious cleansing. This establishment has always delinked the genocidal attrition of Hindus of Kashmir from their displacement as well as ideological imperatives of Muslim separatism.

The necessity of Return Posture

Why should the political class maintain and sustain a posture on return of Kashmiri Hindus. There are two most dominant streaks of thought in Kashmir on the issue of displacement. One is the radical Pan Islamist view. This considers religious cleansing in Kashmir as the important achievement of their violent campaign. That the Kashmiri society has been transformed into a Muslim monolith in a secular democratic nation state of India is a major achievement which the return will undermine. Another dominant view is that of the subversive class. They advocate constant engagement with Indian establishment and democratic dispensation to keep control over the levers of power. They visualize return only in symbolic terms as it helps in achieving crucial objectives for so-called freedom movement. Symbolic return delegitimises the argument of displaced Kashmiri Hindus that they are victims of a movement which is driven by theorcratic imperatives. And symbolic return is the best way to camouflage Muslim communalism to further strengthen its subversive machinations within a liberal Indian milieu. The 'symbolic return' manoevre can also be sold both to secularists as well as Hindu protagonists in the name of keeping the semblance of secular or Hindu presence in Valley.

The result of this approach builds a vicious situation of attrition for Kashmiri Hindus. In exile they are to be kept in pathetic state. The economic deprivation of displaced Hindus ensures the coercive powers of state to effect their symbolic return. In Kashmir the Hindu pockets have to live in a condition of total servitude to Muslim communalism. 

The rising attrition levels on displaced Hindus in Jammu and elsewhere as well as those Hindus living in Kashmir are alarming. It should have long back ensured their alienation from Indian mainstream as well. But Kashmiri Hindus know that the attack on them is to break the civilisational continuity of India in Kashmir which they have upheld for seven hundred years. Kashmiri Hindus have already proved alienation theorists wrong.

The battle cry of Kashmiri Hindus in not through gun. But because of their assertion that they will not legitimise Muslim communalism. Indian State seeks to salvage secularism in Kashmir through mere symbolism which is vicious. Indian state has created a situation where Hindus in Jammu and Kashmir have to compromise with Muslim Communalism. They have to be a hostage. Kashmiri Hindus reject the secular governance through hostaging of Hindus. They will continue to struggle to correct the content of secularism in the state.

*The author is the Chairman of Panun Kashmir.

Previous

Index

Next