“Don’t call on this number again. It’s the army’s number; I’m standing in the queue just got my turn. Just take care of yourself”, my Abbu helplessly said. Imagining my Abbu, a middle-aged Kashmiri with his kind smile and sparkling eyes standing in a long queue to talk to his daughter while others waited behind him, gave me a little heartache. There was no space and time for showing my emotions to him; the state measured what and how much he talked. The moment I hung up the phone, the sight of how Nazis treated Jews took over. They were kept in concentration camps, surrounded by barricades, aloof from the rest of the world.
While Hitler, a proud, passionate, determined monarch saw freedom of the Jews as a threat to his society hence decided to keep them in camps, the world outside watched. The sad reality of international society is that unless something ‘doesn’t affect it directly, it ‘won’t empathize—no matter how much things are going wrong. The basic nature of a human, compassion, is lost while building ‘civilized human society’. Though every non-Kashmiri generally will have an opinion regarding abrogation of Article 370, only a few will have compassion and empathy to understand it.
The opinions on the revocation of Article 370 argue that it’s for the development of Jammu and Kashmir. It is an integration in a ‘real sense’ with the Indian Union. The little read minds also superficially argue that till now every political party had politicized the issue, but now the politics of the former state will become healthier and the dynastic rule of the two parties will decline. As much as these ‘intellectual minds’ would like to argue that it’s for the betterment of local people, some of them do give a vague reference to the fact that the method of doing it is wrong. But this error of method only makes a guest appearance in their arguments.
It’s as if the idea of ‘consent’ is exclusive to only feminist debates, and it dare not to cross that ‘exclusive threshold’. Had that been the truth than the West, of course, would have been right about its decision of colonization. Because, “what does poor East really know about civilization and development?” The burden that white men took on itself to ‘educate the world’ also shared the common goals of homogenization and ruling by crippling the aspirations of the ‘other’.
As far as the development is concerned Jammu and Kashmir is better developed than some of the states ruled by BJP today. The 2017 Human Development Index of Jammu and Kashmir is better than the states like Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat (Human Development Index is a combination of education, life expectancy, per capita income indicators). So is it really development? The speech PM Modi gave did talk about the need for the younger generations to take the reins of political forces in their hands. But what is the incentive for them to do so?
If tomorrow some of the young leaders really appealed to the masses by forming a strong political party that threatens the interest of the Centre one can see that the elections can get rigged as in the case of 1987 state legislative elections. Or worse, if some of these ‘new faces’ were able to push themselves to mainstream politics by maintaining good state-centre relations for the most part, they would still be caged within their homes on the pretext of corruption which is exclusive to any state and even booked under PSA, which in the case of Kashmir could be booked against any person who has an awakened consciousness. So why should they, if they know the fate? Has the Indian union done anything to win their faith and hearts apart from giving speeches for mass consumption? As for those who believe that Kashmir will now be a ‘true member’ of the Indian community, I have a question: is that what Kashmiris aspired to be?
It is important to note that any movement broadly witnesses three types of following: the ones who are with it, the ones who are against and the ones who lie in the middle. In the context of Kashmir’s struggle—the ones who were against the Indian Union after the abrogation of Article 370—are now completely against it. The ones initially cheered for Indian Union are, of course, better intertwined with it now. But the question is about the ones who lie in the middle, which happens to be the deciding factor. These are the groups everyone tries to get on their side for truly having a successful movement.
In the context of Kashmir, these were the ones who never completely stood with India or against it. These groups always tried to give India the benefit of the doubt. By snatching and raping Kashmir’s aspirations, India government today has lost the control on this infringe yet significant faction. It has created a new generation of resistance that first could have been in their favour but now has taken the burden of resistance consciously on their shoulders. By abrogating Article 370, the only bridge that Indian Union could have used to reach to Kashmir’s heart is now broken. A generation of fresh resistance has arrived who have seen injustice happen in broad daylight. This imposition has made India lose its friends in Kashmir, if not create enemies.
I am aware of the fact that Kashmir is turning away little by little from its Suific-Rishi cultural roots. The political void created by the uprisings in the conflict-ridden valley is being filled with radicalism. The forced removal of Kashmiri Pandits has made it even harder to look at the older image of Kashmir. On hearing the stories of peaceful Kashmir from my Ami makes me long to see ‘that Kashmir’ more. But there remained what was left of our struggling Kashmiri culture. The culture that was visible through the hospitality of Kashmiris given to a guest or a tourist. I could still see embers of hope whenever I went to the Sufi Shrines in the valley. I saw ‘that Kashmir’ alive in the eyes of loving Kashmiris folks who sang poems of Lal Daed and Sheikh-ul-Aalam alike.
This forced occupation of Kashmir has threatened even to take away what is left of our collective identity. If integration was really the aim, has it ever been achieved by coercion? I’m scared that this coercive invasion would backslash not just on Kashmir but on the rest of India. Devoiding Kashmir an identity of its own, forcefully taking its autonomy (even if it’s for the namesake) has given valuable reasons to Kashmiris to believe that democracy is nothing but an illusion, majoritarianism.
My Mumma who talked thrice to her daughters on a day couldn’t speak to them for weeks. My Abu, who has taught me to speak up for my rights, walked home scared and silently, and my sister who always has been a rational, outspoken Muslim woman grew quieter, and tears helplessly fell from her eyes. I, a common Kashmiri woman—who would get goose-bumps after hearing the national anthem outside of India—felt caged on the Independence Day of India. It signals that India has lost Kashmiris, even if it got Kashmir. I feel a deep resistance, anger in myself, the anger that has turned cold and sour. I feel betrayed, cheated, stabbed and disappointed with the Indian democracy. I no longer feel warmth by looking at the Indian flag; instead, I turn my gaze away from it.