Understanding the BBC footage

BBC has come up with a footage claiming the Indian forces fired tear gas and firearms at a 'rally' in Srinagar. The government is denying it and has asked for evidence from BBC and Al Jazeera.

It is difficult for people to believe the government's version of 'truth', unless they want to blindly support the government. At the same time it is very difficult for people to believe the BBC or Al Jazeera, because both have peddled fake news in the past, on multiple occasions. Al Jazeera is particularly notorious for being under the thumb of the Qatari government and toeing its line on geopolitics. From fake news on Syrian Civil War to conspiracy theory on Jewish advance warning on 9/11, AJ has done it all.

Now coming to the video. Let us assume that the video posted is indeed genuine. Let us assume that there was firing as it can be heard in the video. Let us assume tear gas was fired as claimed in the video and report. The question one should ask oneself is what were the people protesting for? How were the protests carried out? Why was there a need to fire? Was this protest unexpected? Was this protest different from the earlier protests in Kashmir?

What were the people protesting for?

Obviously the people were protesting the abrogation of Article 370. We have seen many videos and reports in multiple news channels, where Kashmiris have shown supporting the move by the government. But like any government decision there would be people who would not support that. It is not really a surprise that Kashmiris have come out in protest over the move. In fact what happened is exactly on predicted lines. There is no element of shock or surprise here.

How were the protests carried out?

We want the terrorists to succeed 

In the video we see a large group of people, all most entirely made up of men, marching down streets. They are carrying flags, banners, sticks and stones. The banners they are carrying call for freedom and reinstating Article 370. Such grievance protests are okay and probably the Kashmiris have a right to carry them out. The flags at the ‘rally’ are what makes this protest anything but peaceful. The flags of Jaish E Mohammad (Lit. Army of Mohammad), flags of Pakistan, flags of Azad Kashmir (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) can be seen. One should ask oneself, if abrogation of Article 370 was the core issue, why were people waving flags of JeM, an organisation that has carried out multiple terror attacks in Kashmir? Was this a protest against abrogation of Article 370 or a support march for a globally designated terror organisation?

As if flags of a terror outfit was not enough, we also see posters of Islamic State’s ‘Wilayah Hind’(province/region of India). The poster shows Sayar Ahmed, alias Abu Jareer, who was killed by the security forces in June this year. People in the video can be heard shouting the name of Zakir Musa multiple times. Zakir Musa (also killed in 2019) was the chief of Ansar Gazwatul Hind, an Al Qaeda affiliate. The Arabic name, Ansar Gazwatul Hind literally means, ‘supporters of invasion of India’. This refers to the saying of the Prophet (the Hadiths) where he promised paradise to the people who would invade Hind (India).

Towards the very end of the video we see a man standing atop a building, shouting slogans. His first cry is, ‘Hum kya chaahte..?’(what do we want?) and the crowd responds with ‘aazadi’ (freedom). His second cry is, ‘aazadi ka matlab kya?’ (what does freedom means?) and the crowd responds, ‘La Ilaha Il allah’ (there is no other god but Allah). These are two standards slogans/war cries used by Kashmiris during their protests. The call for freedom from India and the religious slogan denying the existence of other gods/faiths over Islam.

The call for an Islamic Kashmir is not new. It has been there since the beginning of militancy in the Valley in the early 90s. Slogans like, ‘Kashmir me rehna hoga, Allahu Akbar kehna hoga’ (If you want to live in Kashmir, you have to say, Allahu Akbar, a call for conversion of Hindus to Islam) were raised. More sinister slogans were used in the 90s to drive away the Hindus from the Valley. These included, Kashir banawon Pakistan, Bataw Varaie, Batneiw Saan’ (Kashmir will become Pakistan, with Pandit women, but without their men), ‘Yaha kya chalega, Nizam-e-Mustafa’ (What will work here, the law of Sharia). The same sentiments prevail today. Just there there are hardly any Hindus left in the Valley to drive out. The narrative has now shifted to Azadi. But the religious elements remain intact.

The liberals who get a chill down their spines at the thought of the imaginary ‘Hindu Rashtra’ are blissfully unaware of demands of a Sharia State in Kashmir. These people watch fictions like Ghoul and Leila and go around discussing how dreadful the current scenario is. At the same time they are either deliberately silent or ignorant of what is happening in Kashmir.

Why was there a need to fire?

As during many protests in Kashmir, the security forces use fire arms as the last resort, when either their own lives are in danger or the crowd is jeopardising an ongoing terrorist encounter. Since the BBC video is an edited version of their raw footage, we have no means to ascertain whether the protestors got violent and the use of fire arms by the forces were a response to the provocation by the protestors. We can either believe the BBC blindly or wait for more information.

Was this protest different from the earlier protests in Kashmir?

Not really. The protests in the video follow the standard template of any other protest in Kashmir. Go to Friday prayers, finish the prayers, come out, shout slogans, wear a mask, raise ISIS flags, pelt the security forces with stones, get injured in retaliatory measures, play victim.

Among other things

Many people are angry that the government is hiding information from the people. It is a genuine ask. We as citizens of the country have the right to know what is happening in our country. The lack of information from the government is forcing people to seek information elsewhere. An information gap is what leads to people believing fake news.

Recently Siddharth Vardharajan of The Wire, filed a report on how security forces have fired pellet guns on people and they have lost their eye sight. No one can say with full authority that the situation in Kashmir valley is ideal. But to go and file a report which is nothing a but a bunch of lies, is a totally different thing. The video shows interviews with people who claim to have been the victims of pellet gun wounds. However none of them have so much as a scar on their faces. Yet they claim that their eyes have been injured. Such malicious reports will make people believe anything as long as there is no credible information from the government.

People are also upset because they think abrogation of Article 370 is against the wish of the people of Kashmir valley. They think that such a move will not integrate Kashmir into India. They think this move will further alienate the Kashmiris. All of the above concerns might be true. But let us not forget that these are concerns only for the people of the Valley. Let us not forget that the abrogation of Article 370 also impacted the regions of Jammu and Ladakh. People in these regions are overwhelmingly happy with the step. Ladakh has been demanding a Union Territory status for a very long time. What about the aspirations and demands of people outside the Valley?

People are also saying that since the Valley clearly is against the abrogation of Article 370, it should not have been done. The move would only lead to further violence and an increase in militancy. This is a stupid argument. Since when did fear of violence has stopped governments from taking steps in larger public interest? The recent episode of entry of women of menstruating age in Sabarimala temple is a case in point. There were large scale protests by women across the state of Kerala against the Supreme Court ruling. An overwhelming majority of women in Kerala and many southern states were against letting women of menstrual age into the temple. Yet, the State government tried to implement the order of the Supreme Court. The people who are now angry as to why the voices of people are not heard, were angry then because people were voicing their concerns against a Court order.

We are entitled to information on the situation in Kashmir. The government is not doing a great job by allegedly denying or supressing the information of unrest in Kashmir. We have all the rights to know what is happening. But at the same time, we should take a moment and ask ourselves, ‘are we really upset about the absence of the news or are we inadvertently supporting a rabid religious movement which was responsible for genocide? Do we support the terror organisations and their sympathisers? The choice is ours.

Kashmir and The Economist's gossip column

Welcome to Kashmir
Image courtesy - IBTimes

There is never a dull time to write about Kashmir. The place is always on the edge. Sometimes due to an infiltration bid from Pakistan or there are mass protests by the locals. While the Indian army does a good job at containing the infiltration attempts, nothing much has changed when it comes to locals protesting. Friday afternoons, after the prayer, are a preferred time for protests. Masked men would raise anti-India slogans and wave Pakistani flags. They would have an immediate audience of people returning from the prayers (Friday prayers are kind of mandatory in Islam and mosques witness a high attendance compared to other days). Till some time ago the protesters would wave Pakistani flags to show their support towards Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan, i.e. secession from India. Things have taken an alarming trend ever since the Islamic State came into being. The protesters now wave IS flags, probably showing support to the brutal terror outfit.

The story of Kashmir is complicated and there are no immediate answers to the problem, especially when Pakistan is illegally occupying almost a third of the territory. This blogpost is not an attempt to find solution to the Kashmir problem or to assign blame for the mess the place is in today. This is in response to a recent article that appeared in The Economist. Titled “Kashmir in stasis – Rough sleeping”, the article is an attempt to highlight the recent bout of violence that resulted in five people losing their lives.

The article, full of rhetoric and very little substance seems to be an attempt at “covering India” in each of its issues. The Economist wants to increase its subscription base in India and hence gives extra coverage to stories from the country. No harm in that. With dwindling subscriptions in mature markets in the West, India is the obvious market. China being a tough nut due to its extremely strict media censorship.

Back to the article. The article begins with, “MUSLIMS know the parable as the story of the People of the Cave: some men fall asleep and find, on waking, that centuries have passed and the world is transformed. The people of the Kashmir valley in the lush uplands of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir have their own version”.

Well, it’s not just the Muslims of the valley who know this parable, the Hindus of the valley, who were systematically murdered of forced to flee their homes in hundreds of thousands are equally aware of that.

“Ever since 1947, when they found themselves east of an active frontline between the two new states of India and Pakistan, valley folk have watched the world evolve”.

The Kashmiri people did not find themselves between two new states. The state of Kashmir acceded to India (just like the 550 princely states did after 1947), after Pakistan attacked the territory by infiltrating tribal people and army men without insignia.

“And still the valley’s 7m people, who speak their own unique language, are nearly all Muslim and generally disdain India and Pakistan alike, remain hapless pawns in a vicious game between those rivals”.

Kashmiris speak a unique language just like millions of other Indians speak theirs. There are 22 scheduled languages in India. The population of Kashmir is 96.4% (census 2011) Muslim, largely because the Hindus were kicked out of their homes or murdered by the Kashmiri people in 1990. As far as the “disdain” is concerned, The Economist should recall that 65% eligible Kashmiris turnedout to cast their votes in the 2014 state elections. Not sure where the statistics for “disdain” were dug out from.

“Some facts are clear. Anger at the Indian army’s heavy presence is explosive”.

Of course people will not like to live in a virtual army barrack all their lives. But then what exactly are these people doing to come out of this? Waving Pakistan flags or IS flags will definitely not help the army in reducing their presence. The recent events in Paris & Brussels are case in point where a handful of terrorists unleashed mayhem in an otherwise peaceful city.

“Security forces are quick to shoot, and keen to divert attention from their misconduct”.

This is what is known as a “motherhood statement”. Where are the facts? Where is the source? On the contrary here is a video evidence, which suggests that the security forces actually put their own lives in danger and get beatenup by the locals instead of randomly firing at protestors.

“Few in Kashmir doubt which version is closer to the truth. They have too often heard of sexual abuse by soldiers, and of police framing scapegoats”.

Again The Economist reports like a gossip column quoting hearsay instead of credible sources. People can read The Sun if they want gossip, why bother competing with it?

“Incidents like this often lead to escalating protests and shootings, and end in inquiries with no result”.

Another motherhood statement without any source.

“Some 40,000 people, by official count, have died in the valley since 1990, when a bloody insurgency covertly sponsored by Pakistan provoked a brutal Indian crackdown”.

After carefully establishing that the army in the valley is cruel and brutal and the peaceful, stuck-in-between Kashmiris are the victims, the article come up with a figure of 40,000 dead, subtly implying that these were people killed by the army. This is called “misleading” the readers. The 40,000 includes civilians killed by terrorists & terrorists killed by security forces. Also The Economist should give some editorial space to the fact that the “quick to shoot” security forces came to the valley only after the locals took to insurgency.

“In recent years Pakistan has throttled the flow of arms”.

This is the most ludicrous statement made by The Economist in the entire article. Well if Pakistan has “throttled” the flow of arms, then where exactly do the terrorists get the arms before they try to sneak in across the Line Of Control? There is no evidence of the terrorists having a 3D printer where they can print their assault rifles.

“Dependent on income from tourism, the wider public has scant appetite for jihadist heroics against India’s massive might”.

This is true but then the wider public has never really made these feelings public. There are more rallies and shutdowns in support of theterrorist separatists than against them.

“It’s been 26 years since militancy peaked, but there is more anger and alienation among the youth now than then,” says Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, a separatist leader”.

What else does one expects to hear from a “separatist leader”?

“We want to keep resistance peaceful, but it’s very hard when India bans every outlet for protest or debate, and in fact doesn’t even acknowledge that there is a problem.” 

Of course India will not recognize the problem, i.e. the problem of Kashmir seceding from India (azadi as they call it), because there is no legal basis for that.

The separatists want to move away from India only because they think Muslims cannot live with a Hindu majority India. They sincerely believe in the two nation theory proposed by Jinnah, which led to partition of India. What Mirwaiz doesn’t acknowledge is that the theory has been proved wrong, many times over, in the country Jinnah created. Pakistan has been a hotbed of ethnic and religious unrest ever since it was created.

The Islamic state of Pakistan has a simmering insurgency in Balochistan, where the Pakistani army randomly picks up men, women and children and dumps their mutilated bodies along highways. Read here, here and here. The North Western region of Pakistan has long been a secure hideout for Al-Qaeda and Taliban. The Provinces of Punjab and Sindh witness regular terror attacks carried out by the Pakitani Taliban. Ahmadiand Shia Muslims are brutally massacred on the streets and their places of worship blown up. So much for the two nation theory.

To sum up, the story The Economist is trying to tell is one that of rhetoric and extremely poor research, even gossip masquerading as hearsay in some cases. We understand that you want to improve your subscription base in India (which has more English speaking people than the population of United Kingdom), but to merely fill the “India section” you should not resort to reducing yourself to a Tabloid.

The case of Kashmiri Apples and Scottish single malt – Why Kashmir is not Scotland

The idea of a new country being carved out is an exciting one. Especially in the post Cold War world, where changing boundaries was a remote possibility. East Timor, Kosovo and South Sudan were carved out in the twenty first century on ethno-religious lines. The creation did make for some international headlines but the biggest bang was landed by the referendum in Scotland (happening today). Today the Scots will be asked, “Whether Scotland should be an independent country”? People will vote a “yes” or a “no”. The Indian media has not given much importance to the event, but it is inevitable that someone tries to piggyback the movement happening far away from India. Indian Affair happened to read this article on Firstpost. Hasan Suroor has made a case for self-determination for the Indian Kashmiris and ridiculed the Indians for becoming “embarrassingly jingoistic” on the Kashmir issue. 

The case that Hasan makes is subtle. He starts off with some tidbits on the discussion held in one of the committee rooms in the British Parliament on Kashmir dispute. He then trashes it saying it is a mere ritual. Then there is a full paragraph from “an Indian media report”, which apparently proves Hasan’s point that Indian media has a “patriotic slant”. Then there are a few paragraphs on how the liberal, sophisticated ad broad minded Indians and Pakistanis turn embarrassingly jingoistic, as if by magic.

This is followed by a vague argument on how the, “…notion of absolute national sovereignty passed its sell-by date more than two decades ago.” He gives the collapse of Soviet Union as a point of reference as to why the notion of national sovereignty has ceased to exist.

The point is that Soviet Russia was an imperialist force and treated the now independent states as its colonies. The initial bond of ideology had faded when the socialist economic policies went horribly wrong. The states broke off at the first opportunity they got. The very states then joined the Commonwealth of independent states at Russia’s behest. All is not smooth there, the friction between Russia and its former colonies from Georgia in the Caucasus to Ukraine in the Black Sea are a proof that national sovereignty is very much alive and kicking (Russia has annexed Crimea by force).

Then there is another vague mention of, “The partition of Sudan, the growling momentum of secessionist movements in Africa, and the push for autonomy in the Muslim world-- not to mention what's happening in Ukraine--are all signs of the changing times”. It is difficult to link any of this to the Kashmir issue. Sudan was partitioned on ethno-religious lines after decades of bloodshed. Africa probably will go through a long and slow process of rearranging its territorial boundaries. Countries are not created on a drawing board, that’s what the European imperial powers did. It is understandable that the African people would want to set things right, the way it suits them. There is no push for autonomy in the Muslim world. The only thing happening from Morocco to Malaysia is, a push for more authority and tightening of the proverbial iron fist.

Finally Hasan touches upon the Scottish referendum and makes a subtle case for Kashmir to be given the right to self-determination. The constitution of India gives every citizen the right to free speech. Hasan has exercised his. The arguments are flawed, however. He says, “And it is interesting to see how Britain is approaching it? Not by bullying or intimidation but by love-bombing the Scots, begging them to stay on, and promising to reward them with greater autonomy if they reject independence.”

Azadi Vs Referendum 

Of course the British are love bombing the Scots, after all the Scots never carried out any terrorist attacks, they never colluded with an adversary to weaken the government in Scotland, and neither did they carry out routine stone pelting on the security forces. They deserve better treatment because they argued their case in a civilised manner.

Hasan then implies that the approach of the Indian government is flawed because, “In India, on the other hand, not only autonomy guaranteed to Kashmir at the time of its accession has been progressively whittled down over the years, the Modi government's official policy is to scrap Article 360 [should be read as 370] which gives it special status”. The benefits and relevance of article 370 is open to debate. There are different views on how the issue should be approached. This debate is a sign that democracy in India is alive and well. Hasan might want to listen to his own view on how times are changing. A debate on article 370 too is a sign of changing times. Let’s not stifle the discussion even before it starts.

Then comes the most bizarre argument. “It is a prescription for further alienating the Kashmiris and pushing them into the pro-azadi camp whereas the effort should be to win their hearts and minds-- if necessary by bribing them, as the Brits are doing, offering them inducements they cannot reject. Like everything else, loyalty has a price tag; and how much you are willing to pay shows much you value a relationship”. A debate on article 370 seems to a prescription for alienation. What happened to the spirit of democracy where everything is open to a debate?

The government of Jammu and Kashmir has budgeted an estimate of ₹22,973 crore for the fiscal 2014-15.  This is the amount of central grant that J&K wants for a year. There are many other infrastructure projects that the Indian government has carried out, not to mention the relief work being carried out by the army in wake of the devastating floods in Kashmir. Sadly the Kashmiris have responded with provocative messages with banners and graffiti and tried to cause physical harm to the rescue teams by pelting stones at helicopters and rescue boats. Probably the Kashmiris do not appreciate “bribes”. They will not because it is not about bribe, the issue is based on religion and religion alone.

“The twenty- first century is the age of “multinational statehood” and large nations with culturally diverse populations need people's consent to govern them.  It is no longer possible to impose consent from London, Moscow and Delhi. It has to be earned. Jackboots have had their day”, says Hasan. It is worth remembering that India is probably one of its kind “multinational state” with such mind-boggling diversity. It’s the Kashmiris who do not appreciate that. The hard evidence of this being the systematic persecution and forced exodus of Kashmiri Hindus in the 1990s. The diversity of Kashmir died at the hands of Islamist movement backed by Pakistani state and non-state actors. India also happens to have a federal form of government. The constitution clearly separates the list of responsibilities falling under the union and state lists. The people of India are giving their consent every five years (some times more often) to govern them.

At the end is another argument as to why India should seek help from a third country, ideally the USA since they have past experience of resolving the Irish issue with the British. Then a soft slap, saying you need to grow up India. The sad thing is that the Kashmiri case has no similarities with the Scottish case. The violence, the religious hatred, the role of adversaries, militancy, systematic change of demography by forcing Hindus out, etc has made Kashmir a case unfit for self-determination. 

Hasan would have come across as a rational thinker rather than as an irrational, nirvana seeking teenager had he also said a word or two to the Kashmiris. Something like do not attack your rescuers or do not cross over to the Pakistani side to get militancy training or try to live in a diverse society and bring back your brothers and sisters whom you kicked out decades ago. His is probably the case of “support by silence”.

The unending battle

At the stroke of the midnight hour when the world was sleeping, India was divided into two countries based on religion. What followed was an orgy of hate, riots, arson, rape and murder. Communal tensions started brewing much before the actual date of partition. The days following 15^th August were the most dreadful. An estimated 10 million people migrated between India and Pakistan (many locked their homes believing they will return once the matter cools down) making it the largest mass migration in human history. The violence that engulfed large part of northern and eastern India during those few months lead to many deaths. Official records were scarce but estimates put the number to around a million. India and Pakistan never managed to reconcile.

Who can kick harder?

Four wars have been fought between India and Pakistan and border skirmishes are common. Though there is an agreed ceasefire between the two countries the troops regularly exchange fire. People to people contact on both sides of the border is scarce and there is a deep trust deficit. Regular export of terrorism by Pakistan since the early 90s has not helped the matter at all. The army of Pakistan which also acts as capitalist force (Pakistani armed force controls a USD 10 billion business empire manufacturing everything from fertilizers to breakfast cereals) has successfully managed to keep the fear psychosis alive in Pakistan. The defense budget of Pakistan for fiscal year 2012-13 is PKR 800 billion (USD 8.21 billion) 28% of the total budget spending.

The line between politics and armed forces in Pakistan is so blurred that the election commission wants the army to supervise the elections later this year. The election commission has also ordered verification of electoral rolls to be carried out under supervision of the army. No one knows for sure who between the army and the civilian government rules the state. This is one of the biggest problems when it comes to negotiating peace with Pakistan. The Pakistani army is interested in keeping the fire burning. If in the coming decades the relationship between India and Pakistan normalize there will be a heavy reduction in defense spending and the army will be sent back to the barracks. Obviously they do not want to be sidelined.

The civilian governments of Pakistan tried in the past to patch up with India (once even a general after staging a coup got talking to India) but their military always betrayed them. The recent violation of cease fire in Kashmir is one such example. Two Indian soldiers were killed and their bodies mutilated by the Pakistani troops in an ambush. Meanwhile Pakistan is claiming that Indian troops shot down one of their soldiers. Such news acts as fodder for the jingoists on both sides of the border. Many Indians want a “final” war on Pakistan, some want it to be nuked, some sane types prefer surgical strikes and almost every one firmly agrees that the government is spineless.

From similar experiences around the world we know that a “final” war does not exist, nukes are at best deterrents and military strikes have not wiped out Taliban in Afghanistan even after ten years. Is there a solution to this unending battle? No one knows. There will have to be many changes on both sides of the border. More on the Pakistani side than on the Indian. Political situation in Pakistan has to stabilize, its home grown and military financed terror networks have to be disbanded and honest textbooks should replace the present anti India ones. All this might never happen or at best take many decades. India cannot and should not wait for the right moment to arrive.

India is yet to harness its growing power on the international high table. Ministry of external affair finds it difficult to manage the various stakeholders at once. Severe staff shortage and misplaced foreign policies have made India a dwarf in the international arena. Till 9/11 the western world saw the India – Pakistan relationship from the Pakistani point of view. Aggressive diplomacy and friendly relationship with the US helped Pakistan a lot. India’s repeated allegation of state sponsored terrorism by Pakistan fell on deaf ears.

With no solution in sight, India should embark upon a two prong long term strategy. First is to engage into aggressive diplomacy and second to engage with Pakistan at multiple levels. The international community has finally recognized the issue of Pakistan and its terror networks. Post 2014 when the American forces move out the interest in Pakistan too will diminish. India should be worried about such a situation. This is the time when it should engage in a high level dialogue with not just America but also with other stakeholders like China and Turkey. India should also turn out as a matured democracy in the UN. As an aspirant of a permanent seat on the Security Council it should demonstrate its willingness to engage in world matters than abstaining on matters of world interest in a vote.

Engagement with Pakistan is a necessity. One cannot wish away its neighbours. The current level of engagement is a good step forward. But this can only happen if Pakistan plays ball.