On December 9, when the bodies of two militants killed in south Kashmir’s Kulgam district were buried, thousands of people came to the funeral, turning it into a “hero’s welcome” for two young men who had chosen a path of violence. Kashmir has been in the grip of violent agitation since July 8 when Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani was killed in an encounter. The 2016 uprising, which hit their intensity in July, August and September, outdid the street protests of 2008 and 2010. But those who thought this uprising would fade away from fatigue must not conclude that the semblance of normalcy on the streets of Srinagar means the end of the unrest. The political pundits have no good tidings.
If nothing else can help judge where Kashmir is heading, the attendance at the funerals speaks volumes of the anger that has held the ground for the past five months. South Kashmir has suffered the maximum damage to life and property. The pain may have subsided when the joint separatist platform of Syed Ali Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Yasin Malik said they would relax the protest and shutdown calendars. But the reality is that not much has changed on the ground except that people have accepted that they have to move on with life.
Two mainstream parties, the National Conference and the Peoples Democratic Party, have held their conventions in south Kashmir, albeit under a larger security cover. In some parts of the valley, protests that would turn violent may be a thing of the past. However, the way people rallied behind a militant somehow conveys that they would pursue political conflict. The aftermath of Burhan Wani’s killing was unprecedented in the history of 26 years of the Kashmir conflict. No militant’s killing has ever evoked such a violent response, even when they used to be heroes in the early 1990s. Notwithstanding the fact that Kashmiris did not publicly disown the militants, particularly the locals, the way people distanced themselves from the militant side of politics paved the way for a transition. That was perhaps why a space could be created for dialogue.
People wholeheartedly supported the peace moves between India and Pakistan from 2003 to 2007 and also between New Delhi and Srinagar, though not much was achieved. As soon as both processes went off track, a sense of despondency started looming over the average Kashmiri mind that had pinned hopes on an interim if not permanent resolution to the conflict. This derailment not only led to renewed cynicism but brought the local element back into the militant ranks that had till then been dominated by foreigners.
The hanging of Afzal Guru in 2013 proved to be a watershed development as it pushed many young Kashmiris to militancy as they confessed during interrogations. Burhan emerged as a phenomenon soon after more locals gathered around him to give the indigenous Hizbul Mujahideen a new lease on life. The absence of political engagement contributed to this despondency that later became evident when people rose in revolt over Burhan’s killing. They sent the message: despite taking part in the elections, they would still support a gun-wielding youth. A routine visit to any rural part of Kashmir will show you that people have not given up and they still believe that this is the only way to make New Delhi realise that Kashmir was a political issue that needs political handling. New Delhi’s lack of sensitivity, failure to reach out to people and contemptuous dismissal of the unfolding events have added fuel to the fire that continues to burn in the youth in particular.
The most significant part came when a group of youth in Shopian told a visiting Yashwant Sinha-led delegation that the next round of trouble may be worse than that of 2016, as according to them: “The biggest thing India has done for us is that it has removed the element of fear of death and the gun from us. So we don’t care now.” This is perhaps the strongest statement to emerge so far and is instructive on how to avoid pushing Kashmir into another spell of strife unless it suits those who were responsible for it.
The separatist leadership has registered its writ by dictating when we should work and when we should suspend it. One may have differences with them and their way of functioning, but people do listen to them. Any effort to delegitimize them would leave the field open for anarchy and street gangs. But they also need to navigate cautiously; self infliction cannot be used forever. Rethinking is the best way to renegotiate in a crisis. Former chief minister and National Conference President Farooq Abdullah’s statement must not be dismissed as coming from his maverick nature even though people feel his statements are motivated by the forthcoming parliamentary elections in Srinagar and Anantnag. Abdullah is still the tallest mainstream leader in the state and his endorsement of the Hurriyat Conference speaks a lot for the feeling on the ground. Whether the Hurriyat accepts his support or not, Abdullah’s words signify recognition coming from someone who had once suggested throwing them into the Jhelum. His support for the separatists reveals just how much mainstream politics has been squeezed in the past few months.
The writer is a senior journalist based in Srinagar (Kashmir) and can be reached at shujaat7867@gmail.com
If nothing else can help judge where Kashmir is heading, the attendance at the funerals speaks volumes of the anger that has held the ground for the past five months. South Kashmir has suffered the maximum damage to life and property. The pain may have subsided when the joint separatist platform of Syed Ali Geelani, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Yasin Malik said they would relax the protest and shutdown calendars. But the reality is that not much has changed on the ground except that people have accepted that they have to move on with life.
Two mainstream parties, the National Conference and the Peoples Democratic Party, have held their conventions in south Kashmir, albeit under a larger security cover. In some parts of the valley, protests that would turn violent may be a thing of the past. However, the way people rallied behind a militant somehow conveys that they would pursue political conflict. The aftermath of Burhan Wani’s killing was unprecedented in the history of 26 years of the Kashmir conflict. No militant’s killing has ever evoked such a violent response, even when they used to be heroes in the early 1990s. Notwithstanding the fact that Kashmiris did not publicly disown the militants, particularly the locals, the way people distanced themselves from the militant side of politics paved the way for a transition. That was perhaps why a space could be created for dialogue.
People wholeheartedly supported the peace moves between India and Pakistan from 2003 to 2007 and also between New Delhi and Srinagar, though not much was achieved. As soon as both processes went off track, a sense of despondency started looming over the average Kashmiri mind that had pinned hopes on an interim if not permanent resolution to the conflict. This derailment not only led to renewed cynicism but brought the local element back into the militant ranks that had till then been dominated by foreigners.
If nothing else can help judge where Kashmir is heading, the attendance at the funerals speaks volumes of the anger that has held the ground for the past five months. South Kashmir has suffered the maximum damage to life and property
The hanging of Afzal Guru in 2013 proved to be a watershed development as it pushed many young Kashmiris to militancy as they confessed during interrogations. Burhan emerged as a phenomenon soon after more locals gathered around him to give the indigenous Hizbul Mujahideen a new lease on life. The absence of political engagement contributed to this despondency that later became evident when people rose in revolt over Burhan’s killing. They sent the message: despite taking part in the elections, they would still support a gun-wielding youth. A routine visit to any rural part of Kashmir will show you that people have not given up and they still believe that this is the only way to make New Delhi realise that Kashmir was a political issue that needs political handling. New Delhi’s lack of sensitivity, failure to reach out to people and contemptuous dismissal of the unfolding events have added fuel to the fire that continues to burn in the youth in particular.
The most significant part came when a group of youth in Shopian told a visiting Yashwant Sinha-led delegation that the next round of trouble may be worse than that of 2016, as according to them: “The biggest thing India has done for us is that it has removed the element of fear of death and the gun from us. So we don’t care now.” This is perhaps the strongest statement to emerge so far and is instructive on how to avoid pushing Kashmir into another spell of strife unless it suits those who were responsible for it.
The separatist leadership has registered its writ by dictating when we should work and when we should suspend it. One may have differences with them and their way of functioning, but people do listen to them. Any effort to delegitimize them would leave the field open for anarchy and street gangs. But they also need to navigate cautiously; self infliction cannot be used forever. Rethinking is the best way to renegotiate in a crisis. Former chief minister and National Conference President Farooq Abdullah’s statement must not be dismissed as coming from his maverick nature even though people feel his statements are motivated by the forthcoming parliamentary elections in Srinagar and Anantnag. Abdullah is still the tallest mainstream leader in the state and his endorsement of the Hurriyat Conference speaks a lot for the feeling on the ground. Whether the Hurriyat accepts his support or not, Abdullah’s words signify recognition coming from someone who had once suggested throwing them into the Jhelum. His support for the separatists reveals just how much mainstream politics has been squeezed in the past few months.
The writer is a senior journalist based in Srinagar (Kashmir) and can be reached at shujaat7867@gmail.com