[Reader-list] "leaderless protest"

[Jeebesh]

dear Aditya,

Recently Siddharth Varadarajan wrote an edit piece in Hindu. He writes  
- "Whatever his other failings, Chief Minister Omar Abdullah deserves  
praise for acknowledging that the protests which have rocked the  
Kashmir valley these past few weeks are ‘leaderless' and not the  
product of manipulation by some hidden individual or group."

What do you have to say about this?

warmly
jeebesh

http://www.hindu.com/2010/08/05/stories/2010080555331200.htm

The only package Kashmir needs is justice


Siddharth Varadarajan

Whatever his other failings, Chief Minister Omar Abdullah deserves  
praise for acknowledging that the protests which have rocked the  
Kashmir valley these past few weeks are ‘leaderless' and not the  
product of manipulation by some hidden individual or group.

This admission has been difficult for the authorities to make because  
its implications are unpleasant, perhaps even frightening. In security  
terms, the absence of a central nervous system means the expanding  
body of protest cannot be controlled by arresting individual leaders.  
And in political terms, the spectre of leaderless revolt makes the  
offer of ‘dialogue' or the naming of a ‘special envoy' for Kashmir —  
proposals which might have made sense last year or even last month —  
seem completely and utterly pointless today.

Ever since the current phase of disturbances began, intelligence  
officials have been wasting precious time convincing the leadership  
and public of India that the protests are solely or mostly the  
handiwork of agent provocateurs. So we have been told of the role of  
the Lashkar-e-Taiba and ISI, of the ‘daily wage of Rs. 200' — and even  
narcotics — being given to stone pelters. A few weeks back, an audio  
recording of a supposedly incriminating telephone call was leaked to  
the media along with a misleading transcript suggesting the Geelani  
faction of the Hurriyat was behind the upsurge. Now, our TV channels  
have “learned” from their “sources” that the protests will continue  
till President Obama's visit in November.

Central to this delusional narrative of manipulated protest is the  
idea that the disturbances are confined to just a few pockets in the  
valley. Last week, Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram told reporters  
the problem was limited to Srinagar and two other towns. No doubt,  
some areas like downtown Srinagar, Sopore and Baramulla were in the  
‘vanguard' but one of the reasons the protests spread was popular  
frustration over the way in which the authenticity of mass sentiment  
was being dismissed by the government. For the women who came on to  
the streets with their pots and pans and even stones, or the youths  
who set up spontaneous blood donation camps to help those injured in  
the demonstrations, this attempt to strip their protest of both  
legitimacy and agency was yet another provocation.

In the face of this mass upsurge, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has  
two options. He can declare, like the party apparatchiks in Brecht's  
poem, that since the people have thrown away the confidence of the  
government, it is time for the government to dissolve the people and  
elect another. Or he can admit, without prevarication or equivocation,  
that his government has thrown away the confidence of the ordinary  
Kashmiri.

This was not the way things looked in January 2009, when Omar Abdullah  
became chief minister. Assembly elections had gone off well. And  
though turnout in Srinagar and other towns was low, there was goodwill  
for the young leader. Of course, those who knew the state well had  
warned the Centre not to treat the election as an end in itself. The  
‘masla-e-Kashmir' remained on the table and the people wanted it  
resolved. Unfortunately, the Centre failed to recognise this.

It is too early to gauge the reaction to Mr. Abdullah's promise of a  
“political package” once normalcy is restored. But the people have  
thronged the streets are likely to ask why this package — which the  
chief minister himself admitted was “long in the pipeline” — was never  
delivered for all the months normalcy prevailed. What came in the way  
of amending the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act? Of ensuring there  
was zero tolerance for human rights violations? Of strengthening the  
“ongoing peace process both internally and externally”, as the all- 
party meeting in Srinagar earlier this month reminded the Centre to do?

At the heart of this missing package is the Centre's failure to craft  
a new security and political strategy for a situation where militancy  
no longer poses the threat it once did. The security forces in the  
valley continue to operate with an expansive mandate that is not  
commensurate with military necessity. Even if civilian deaths are less  
than before, the public's capacity to tolerate ‘collateral damage'  
when it is officially said that militancy has ended and normalcy has  
returned is also much less than before.

The immediate trigger for the current phase of protests was the death  
of 17-year-old Tufail Mattoo, who was killed by a tear gas canister  
which struck his head during a protest in Srinagar in June against the  
Machhil fake encounter of April 30. Many observers have blamed his  
death — and the deaths of other young men since then — on the security  
forces lacking the training and means for non-lethal crowd control.  
Tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannon are used all over the world  
in situations where protests turn violent but in India, live  
ammunition seems to be the first and only line of defence. Even tear  
gas canisters are so poorly designed here that they lead to fatalities.

Whatever the immediate cause, however, it is also safe to say that  
young Tufail died as a direct result of Machhil. Though the Army has  
arrested the soldiers responsible for the fake encounter, the only  
reason they had the nerve to commit such a heinous crime was because  
they were confident they would get away with it. And at the root of  
that confidence is Pathribal, the notorious fake encounter of 2000.  
The army officers involved in the kidnapping and murder of five  
Kashmiri civilians there continue to be at liberty despite being  
charge-sheeted by the CBI. The Ministry of Defence has refused to  
grant sanction for their prosecution and has taken the matter all the  
way to the Supreme Court in an effort to ensure its men do not face  
trial. What was the message that went out as a result?

Had the Centre made an example of the rotten apples that have spoiled  
the reputation of the Army instead of protecting them all these years,  
the Machhil encounter might never have happened. Tufail would not be  
dead and angry mobs would not be attacking police stations and  
government buildings. Impunity for the few has directly endangered the  
lives of all policemen and paramilitary personnel stationed in  
Kashmir. There is a lesson in this, surely, for those who say  
punishing the guilty will lower the morale of the security forces.

Mr. Abdullah may not be the best administrator but his biggest  
handicap as chief minister has been the Centre's refusal to address  
the ordinary Kashmiri's concerns about the over-securitsation of the  
state. Today, when he is being forced to induct an even greater number  
of troops into the valley, the Chief Minister's ability to push for a  
political package built around demilitarisation is close to zero.

At the Centre's urging, Mr. Abdullah made a televised speech to his  
people. His words do not appear to have made any difference. Nor could  
they, when the crisis staring us in the face is of national and  
international proportions. Today, the burden of our past sins in  
Kashmir has come crashing down like hailstones. Precious time is being  
frittered in thinking of ways to turn the clock back. Sending in more  
forces to shoot more protesters, changing the chief minister, imposing  
Governor's Rule — all of these are part of the reliquary of failed  
statecraft. We are where we are because these policies never worked.

The Prime Minister can forget about the Commonwealth Games, AfPak and  
other issues. Kashmir is where his leadership is urgently required.  
The Indian state successfully overcame the challenge posed by  
terrorism and militancy. But a people in ferment cannot be dealt with  
the same way. Manmohan Singh must take bold steps to demonstrate his  
willingness to address the grievances of ordinary Kashmiris. He should  
not insult their sentiments by talking of economic packages,  
roundtable conferences and all-party talks. He should unreservedly  
express regret for the deaths that have occurred these past few weeks.  
He should admit, in frankness and humility, the Indian state's failure  
to deliver justice all these years. And he should ask the people of  
Kashmir for a chance to make amends. There is still no guarantee the  
lava of public anger which is flowing will cool. But if he doesn't  
make an all-out effort to create some political space today, there is  
no telling where the next eruption in the valley will take us.

Corrections and Clarifications

Safi A. Rizvi, Officer on Special Duty to the Union Home Minister P.  
Chidambaram, writes in response to Siddharth Varadarajan's article  
“The only package Kashmir needs is justice” (Editorial page, August 5,  
2010) that a sentence in the fourth paragraph, “Last week, Union Home  
Minister P. Chidambaram told reporters the problem was limited to  
Srinagar and two other towns,” is inaccurate. The transcript of the  
media briefing on July 30, 2010 reads as follows: “I do not agree with  
you that the writ of the separatists is running. Yes, in Srinagar and  
perhaps in some other towns they are able to mobilise support, urge  
people to indulge in stone pelting and are able to call bandhs.  
According to the J&K Government, there are many parts of the valley  
which are quite normal … The most aggressive activity is in Srinagar  
and few other towns.”