Why violence in Kashmir is a political choice
Burhan Wani was a militant. By taking up arms against the state he made his death - or far more unlikely, capture, trial and incarceration - inevitable.
But the current violence in the Valley, with an incensed population facing off against a heavily militarised police presence, was a political choice.
It was a choice by politicians in the Valley and in New Delhi to stay silent, and to abandon their responsibilities, and with it, abandon both the people of Kashmir and the security forces set to keep them in check, to each other.
Silence is usually not the choice of politicians. In fact, mostly we wish they would shut up, so when nobody speaks, such silence is a conscious choice, not an oversight.
When the Jats in Haryana attack the police and the state, hordes of politicians rush to calm things down.
When the Patels - a privileged caste in Gujarat - riot to demand more privileges, everybody from the chief minister to the prime minister, to every little wannabe neta has something to say.
In Kashmir, the public and the security forces are left to kill each other, until the international embarrassment becomes so acute that a few politicians find their voice.
 |
| When the Jats in Haryana attack the police and the state, hordes of politicians rush to calm things down. |
Imagine if, after the death of Wani, after the startling show of grief, with tens of thousands coming to mourn a young boy who they probably had never heard of, or if they had heard of him, did not trust the stories, imagine if, after the death of this social media militant somebody had spoken.
Imagine if a set of senior politicians had spoken, addressing the many who came to mourn, and said, "Another young man is dead. He is dead because he chose violence as the means to address his grievances. But Kashmir has seen too much of such deaths. This has to come to an end. Whatever problems that people have, whatever their resentments, they have to be addressed, just not by violence. Neither through the violence of security forces, nor the violence of militants, will we find justice. We certainly will not find peace."
Imagine if a politician had the guts to say that India commits to a process of truth and justice for the Kashmiri people - all Kashmiri people, regardless of caste and creed - that have been killed in the last 27 years since the militancy started.
Imagine politicians taking responsibility for the rights and well-being of the people that they are supposed to represent. Imagine politicians articulating the demands of the people that elected them.
Just imagine this thing. It is called democracy. It is the promise of our Constitution. It is what is denied to Kashmiris. It is denied to them by their politicians, and the politicians in the mainland.
Instead we leave them to the tender mercies of the pellet guns and teargas. We leave the police and paramilitary too, to take responsibility for the inevitable deaths, mutilations and rage.
We will blame the people of Kashmir for the violence that results. Some will blame the security forces, as the men tasked to defend our security fight in the streets with the very citizens they are sworn to defend.
Instead we should blame the ones most responsible, the politicians warming their hands by the fire as the Constitution burns.
This was their choice. This was their responsibility. This is their guilt.