April-June 2013 - Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies

Commentary
J&K after Afzal Guru: Immediate Excuse and Inherent Problems
D Suba Chandran
Director, IPCS
Over the last few days, following the hanging of Afzal Guru, the
Kashmir valley has been witnessing curfews and protests. While
the Kashmir valley, especially Srinagar, is not new to protest
politics and curfew governance, what is striking is its recurrence
despite the drastic decline in militant violence during the last few
years.
What does the protest signify? Do the protesters identify
themselves with Afzal Guru and the reasons that he was hung for,
or are they using his execution as an excuse to express their
dissatisfaction over what happened (to be more precise, what
has not happened) during the last few years?
What is the Problem? Afzal Guru's Execution or the Absence of
Political Dialogue?
Afzal Guru's execution should be seen more as the trigger, rather
than the reason behind the protests that are being witnessed
now. Given the history of how governments have dealt with
Kashmir, both at the national and state levels, one is likely to
conclude that, this time too, the government will use curfews,
media censorship and the security forces to wear out the protest
movement. This has been a time-tested strategy of the
government: sit tight, do nothing politically, and let the security
forces take the heat.
Such a strategy has worked for the governments both in New
Delhi and in J&K in the past. It may very well work again this time
as well. But will this address the problem, or will it only increase
the distance between the government and its subjects in
Kashmir? Certainly, Afzal Guru is not the issue here. His hanging is
a trigger for a larger problem. What is it?
Fire Fighting as a Long Term Policy
Subsequent governments, cutting across party lines both at the
State and national levels, have uniformly followed a policy of
doing nothing until the situation spirals to a point that illicits
immediate damage control. How else can one explain the
responses of subsequent governments?
While it may be interesting and even frightening to find out the
reasons for such a policy, what needs to be clearly understood is:
this policy is not working and is not in the interest of the State.
While the people suffer every day because the government
considers inaction as the best form of action; the policy may tire
the people out in the short term, but may not help the State in
the long term.
Round Tables and Interlocutions as a Ploy
If fire fighting has become synonymous with the government's
policy, what has really increased the distance between the
government and the people are those specific political
interventions that raised the expectations at the ground level;
invariably leading to desperation as the government did not
further pursue its own initiatives.
What have been the results of those Round Table Conferences
led by none other than the Prime Minister of India? Did he
consider and seriously pursue the recommendations of those five
groups initiated by him?
Despite frustrations and negative sentiments from previous
failures, different shades in J&K responded positively to the
interlocutors led by Dr Radha Kumar and Mr Dileep Patgaonkar.
The team took its job seriously, for it was tasked by the
government to submit a report. After numerous visits and rounds
of discussion, the team submitted its report. What has been the
response thus far?
If only the government had taken the above two initiatives
seriously and addressed the basic political issue, there would
have been no protests today in the Kashmir valley. But was that
ever an objective of the government? In retrospect, it appears a
ploy to be seen as doing something, for the ultimate objective has
always been to do nothing.
Governing Through Curfews and Measuring Peace Through
Tourist Inflows
In the absence of a clear vision and long term policy,
governments use curfews and media gagging to address protests,
instead of trying to address the basic problem at hand.
It is really surprising that the government measures peace in
terms of the absence of violence. The math is simple: if there are
no terrorist attacks, the State is peaceful. Worse, another
yardstick to measure peace is – the number of tourists. If there
are more tourists, then obviously, the region must be peaceful. To
crown this calculation further, if Bollywood visits the valley, the
reasoning is elevated to a gospel – that peace has certainly
returned to the valley.
Since when did we start measuring peace by increasing tourist
inflows and Bollywood visits?
Abdicating the Responsibility to the Security Forces
The governments – both at the State and national levels seem to
have abdicated the responsibility of governance to the security
forces. Despite problems and accusations of violations, the
security forces – the state police, paramilitary and the military
fulfilled their responsibilities of establishing law and order.
Ideally, the political leadership should have taken the process
further by ensuring governance through established democratic
institutions. The failure of the panchayat system in J&K alone, will
show where the problem is. Will this approach help political
institutions retain their credibility in the long run? Should they
not realise that this is not in their interest?
To conclude, the problem is not the hanging of Afzal Guru. It is the
absence of a sustained political process, and a collective failure of
institutions both at the State and national levels. The irony is, the
State remains aware of this and yet, does nothing about it.
South Asia Plus 15