Militant killings in Kashmir

“We want to kill militancy, not militants”, said the new governor a day before killing a Hizb commander Mannan Wani. This makes sense because even we want to kill/end militancy. It’s sagacious because even the militants want to end militancy. We may differ in its modus operandi and motivations, wherein the militants may want a permanent solution of Kashmir through a popular referendum and the government may just hope that one fine morning Kashmiris will wake up and decide to call it all off for nothing. However, leaving our differences aside- even from the New Delhi’s perspective, killing militants has not, is not, and will never yield anything to them in Kashmir.

New Delhi needs to understand that local boys resorting to a gun, may not be agreed to be the best solution- even from the Kashmiri point of view, but nobody considers them terrorists. A terrorist is someone who terrorizes. Do these handful of untrained and ill-equipped boys in the hills terrorize mammoth Indian army? Negative. Not at all. In fact, terrorists rarely terrorize armies. Usually, they terrorize the civilians. Then, the Army/Police chips in as the protagonists, and saves the civilians from their terror. Those who attacked Taj in Mumbai fall in this bracket, because they came to terrorize the civilians. In such a scenario, the security agencies receive complete cooperation and help from the locals, because they are their saviors and heroes.

   

Let’s get real. That is not the case in Kashmir. In fact, it’s the reverse. Let’s forget about our political ideologies for a moment, and just talk facts – hard facts. Do these militants terrorize the civilians? No. Do the civilians at least see them as a threat? No. Are they at least scared of them? No. Let’s flip the page. Are the security agencies looked at as the security of people, by the people? No, even the officers will testify themselves. Do the civilians see the forces as a threat? Yes, you may go ask anyone. Are they seen with an awe or contempt for being those who impose their supremacy and rule on the people? Affirmative. Then, who is protecting whom, from whom and for whom,? If this is the case, the word ‘terrorism’ for the militants defeats the logic.

Delhi needs to contemplate why are these militants- who are supposed to be evil- regarded as heroes? Why are their security forces- who are supposed to be the people’s security against these ‘evil harmful men’- regarded as alien forces? And if this is the context, killing a militant/rebel will not just be useless, but counterproductive. Please note that these points are being raised from the Indian point of view, with all honesty. By killing Ashfaq Wani, Delhi gifted Kashmir a hero and a trail of thousands of others who followed in his footsteps. By eliminating Burhan Wani, Delhi presented yet another icon to the Kashmir movement, and hundreds more set out on his path. Now, by killing Mannan Wani, a scholarly rebel leader has found a place in the hearts of a new generation, who are likely to take his fallen gun and continue his legacy. Their funerals should solve it all, as to who they are to the people. And what’s being achieved by this?

India has been killing rebels in Kashmir for about 30 years now. Where do the new ones sprout out from? This is because these are not some foreign men who’ve sneaked in and could be done away with. Their source is the issue of Kashmir, and India’s mishandling of it. Such a feeling is omnipresent in Kashmir, and anybody anytime can say, enough, and get lost into the wilderness of militancy. These are the common and educated youth who don’t pose much threat even to the army. They are there to make a point. Their existence is the manifestation of the collective anger of the people. Yes, most of the people do not think militancy is the right option, but that is Kashmir’s internal debate. One of the worst examples of misunderstanding the whole saga was one former police chief, who’d post ‘Well done Boys”, and congratulate his men on killing the militants. These were not criminals or robbers who had exasperated people and now they are out of the way. Their deaths generate more clones of them. He could’ve acted responsibly and expressed remorse on having no option but to kill ‘misguided youth’, and should have appealed to the political class to work on the resolution of the problem, as one general of the Indian army did, in 2016. The morale argument in killing few local boys isn’t as rewarding as the avoidance of provocation.

In the end, I seriously think that those who call the shots in Delhi, know everything mentioned hitherto. They do it will-fully simply because a Kashmiri dead body is increasingly becoming priceless in the elections of mainland India. Delhi is clearly okay with the status quo and daily body bags in Kashmir since it keeps defense budget up and it helps build a brave image of braggadocious political leadership who sell these bodies to their electorate as if they were Osama Bin Ladens for India. They have poisoned their people so much regarding Kashmir and its Pakistan angle that they will get support even for a carpet bombing in Srinagar, and nobody will bat an eye. It would be branded as a ‘smaller evil to end the larger one” and would even be celebrated. This is where Kashmiris need to rethink if the gun is really fetching them anything.

makhdoomi.mehboob6@gmail.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

15 − 3 =