D. Suba Chandran

During the last week, there were three major developments. First was the PDP meeting, that could not succeed, as the senior leaders were not allowed by the administration to take part. Second was the statement by Farooq Abdullah responding to Pakistan’s statement on the Gupkar resolution, and asking Islamabad to stay away from Kashmir. The final development was violence in Srinagar, as the police and the Shia mourners clashed, as the latter tried to take a procession.

I
Facts on the ground

The PDP General Secretary calls for a meeting; the administration prevents senior leaders from attending it
On 3 September 2020, Ghulam Nabi Lone Hanjura, had called for a meeting of the PDP to “discuss the present situation in J&K and chalk out a future strategy.” (The Hindu, 3 September 2020). However, the senior leaders were prevented from taking part in the meeting. The Hindu quoted Nayeem Akhtar, a senior PDP leader saying, “I was stopped by policemen manning my house from coming out of my residence. The government tells the Supreme Court and the world community that political leaders are free but the reality is completely opposite.” Leaders from other political parties have condemned the administration for preventing senior leaders of the PDP from taking part in the meeting.

The PDP meeting comes in the wake of another meeting organised by Farooq Abdullah a week earlier, in which they have subscribed to the Gupkar Resolution.

Farooq Abdullah warns Pakistan to keep away from Kashmir politics, and stop sending armed men
On 30 August, Farooq Abdullah, leader of the National Conference, and a former Chief Minister, made a strong statement on Pakistan’s response to the Gupkar resolution. Abdullah was quoted telling the PTI in Srinagar: “Pakistan has always abused mainstream political parties of Jammu and Kashmir, but suddenly they like us…Let me make it clear that we are not anyone’s puppets, neither New Delhi’s nor of anyone across the border. We are answerable to the people of Jammu and Kashmir and will work for them.” (The Hindu, 30 August 2020)

He was also quoted to have stated: “I would urge Pakistan to stop sending armed men into Kashmir. We want an end to the bloodshed in our State. All political parties in Jammu and Kashmir are committed to fight for our rights peacefully, including for what was unconstitutionally snatched away from us on August 5 last year.” (The Hindu, 30 August 2020)

BJP’s Ram Madhav visits Srinagar and meets regional leaders
Last week, Ram Madhav, the national general secretary of the BJP visited Srinagar to meet with local leaders of his own party, and also belonging to the others. 
Peerzada Ashiq, in his story published in the Hindu, links it to the Gupkar resolution and writes that Madhav’s visit comes “in the wake of National Conference’s (NC) bid to spearhead an alliance of seven regional parties to launch a joint fight for restoration of J&K’s special status.” (The Hindu, 29 August 2020). According to him, Madhav “met several regional leaders, including J&K Apni Party’s Ghulam Hassan Mir and Usman Majeed and disgruntled leaders from the Peoples Democratic Party and the J&K Peoples Movement, apparently to cobble together to a new political force to counter Farooq Abdullah’s new regional alliance to demand the return of the special status.”

Continuing Violence 
During 29-30 August, three militants were killed during an operation that started on Saturday night and went up to Sunday morning, near Srinagar. During the operation an Assistant Sub-Inspector of the J&K Police was killed. The militants have not been identified. (The Hindu, 30 August 2020) 

On 29 August, in Pulwama district in south Kashmir, three militants of the Hizbul Mujahideen were killed in a search operation by the security forces.

On 30 August, there were clashes between the Shia mourners and the J&K police in Srinagar, when the former tried to go forward with the Muharram processions. Earlier, the administration has imposed restrictions on any gathering within the city. According to the Police, the mourners tried to break the restrictions, besides raising political slogans and carrying banners calling for free Kashmir. 

II
Focus Questions in the background

Allowing the parties to resume politicking and Kickstarting a much needed political process
Political parties and politicking is an essential component of democracy. This is not only a political right, but also constitutional right. While the above is essential for the functioning of a democracy in normal times, it assumes even more salience in a conflict environment. Political parties and politicking are the first cushion against any societal unrest in a conflict situation, and also are the first responders in starting a healing process. The State should protest their space, and even work towards enlarging their functioning. 

Unfortunately, the government both in J&K and in New Delhi consider the political parties as a hindrance towards a larger peace. This strategy needs to be revisited. One could understand the initial anxiety of the government, when it imposed the restrictions following August 2019 decisions. One year later, the government should be bold enough to reconsider this strategy. Muscular policy does not mean keeping things under wrap; it also means, a bold decision to open up.

In this context, the decision to release the leaders of the NC and other smaller parties is a welcome development. The PDP should also be provided with the same space. If the leaders of the BJP and newly formed ones could be allowed to meet the others and do politicking, so should be the leaders of the NC and the PDP.

Especially, when the regional political parties are talking about constitutional politics, the government should embrace that, instead of hindering it. The governments – both in Srinagar and New Delhi has revisit this strategy.

Pakistan and the Mainstream political parties in Kashmir Valley
The statement by Farooq Abdullah in response to Pakistan’s support to the Gupkar Resolution is an interesting one.

His statement underlines two issues. First, the relationship between the mainstream political parties of J&K and Pakistan. Neither the political leaders nor the military in Pakistan considered the mainstream political parties in J&K as the true representatives of the people of the State. For Pakistan, the Hurriyat remained the “sole spokesman” of J&K. So the recent support for Gupkar Resolution is nothing more than opportunistic. Worse, for the regional political parties in Kashmir Valley, the support from across the border should be a curse. This is precisely what the right-wing in India wants to hear, and abuse parties like the NC and PDP as Pakistan’s puppets. Islamabad should keep away from making such statement; perhaps, it is purposefully doing so, to further discredit the mainstream political parties within Kashmir Valley. 

The second issue that Farooq Abdullah statement underlines is his warning “to stop sending armed men into Kashmir” as political parties in Kashmir want “want an end to the bloodshed.” This is precisely what Pakistan’s contribution has been, in terms of supporting militants in Kashmir Valley, glorifying them as martyrs, and in the process leading many youths in the path of violence resulting in the loss of innocent lives. 

There is a serious issue within J&K, and there are serious efforts by political parties to address them. External actors should keep away from them, and allow a home grown process. 

The Muharram procession: Politicising an administrative decision and providing a religious colour
The clashes between the police and the Shia mourners, when they tried to take out a procession is given a political and religious colour. 

Much before the procession in J&K, at the national level, the Supreme Court refused to provide any “general directions” to allow Muharram processions across India. According to the Court: “It is not possible to give general directions for the whole country... It will lead to chaos. A particular community will be targeted for spreading COVID... We as a court cannot do that, cannot expose you to that risk. We cannot give general directions.” The above was stated by the Chief Justice of India addressing advocate Azim Laskar who was appearing on behalf of a Shia cleric.

When the advocate referred to allowing the Chariot procession in Puri, the Chief Justice responded with the following: “In the Jagannath Puri case, we allowed it [rath yatra] from one point to another. In such cases, the risks and damages can be assessed. But when it comes to the whole country, these cannot be assessed. There may be chaos.” (The Hindu, 28 August 2020)

Following the above general order, local State administrations followed a set of different of parameters. For example, the Bombay High Court on 29 August granted permission to hold the procession on Muharram in Mumbai, but with specific restrictions. It called for stringent COVID-19 precautions, the procession to be carried out during a particular time and in a pre-determined route, by trucks and not on foot, and a maximum of five people, along with one videographer. (The Hindu, 30 August 2020). According to the Hindu, “The court also directed the State government to impose all necessary restrictions, including Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code if required, to control crowds.”

Earlier in Tamil Nadu, the State government came down with a similar restriction on celebrating the Ganesh festival, immersing the idols, and taking a procession. On 14 August, the State government disallowed the taking of traditional procession and immersing the idols in the Sea.

Developments within Kashmir Valley regarding the Muharram procession should be seen in the national backdrop. While rest of the world look at what happened on 30 August in Srinagar, in terms of Police firing pellets and injuring innocent and unarmed mourners, there is also another side to the story. Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code was imposed on select areas of Srinagar on that date, and there were restrictions on the movements. The procession was a violation. The security forces were tasked to maintain order, and they attempted to do it. It is unfortunate, that they had to fire bullets – rubber or otherwise. While the security forces have to take a larger responsibility, the civil society also has to share the same. Peace is not the prerogative of the State alone. 

In retrospect, as was done in Mumbai, perhaps the administration should have provided a designated space and an administrative instruction. 

Violence by the State, even if it is legitimate, is unacceptable. So is violence by the Society, even if it is justifiable. This is precisely why, J&K needs political parties and a political process. They act as a crucial bridge between the both, taking forward the decisions, convince the other and arrive at accommodations.
 

Print

Bookmark