I do not know, if I am the right person to talk on a subject that otherwise is domain of intellectuals. Those in the words of a JKLF leader are supposed to ‘provide voice to the voiceless and place truth before the people’. Looking inwards, I do not fall in the category of intellectuals’ as defined years back , by two important contemporary of ‘intellectuals’ as defined, years back, by two important contemporary international scholars, Noam Chomsky and Edward said.
The role of intellectuals in contemporary Kashmir came under discussion at a seminar on “Prisoners of Kashmir came under discussion at a seminar on “ Prisoners of Kashmir and our responsibilities “ organized by JKLF in remembrance of Dr. Abdul Ahad Wani, slain Professor of international law of Kashmir university. The immediate cause for the seminar on prisoners was awarding life imprisonment to two JKLF activists, Nazir Ahmad Sheikh and Showkat Ahmad Khan by the TADA Court.
Leading lights of Kashmir from historian Dr. Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal to top Kashmiri poet Rehman Rahi were amongst the speakers. It was, undoubtly, a class of litterateurs on the dais and in the audience, some of them having received highest awards in literature and poetry but in strict sense there was no intellectual like Franz Fanon, Jean Paul Sartre or Eqbal Ahmad who are remembered for raising their voice against denial of freedom to Algeria. Equally, there were no ‘writers like Robert Bly, David rat, Robert Lowell, Grace Paley and many others who under the banner of American writers Against Vietnam War had raised their voices against atrocities committed by American soldiers.’ Still getting such a motley group of historians, poets’ writers, medicos and professionals with varied interests and beliefs under one umbrella to talk about prisoners in jails and speak about awarding of life imprisonments to some activists of JKLF and other organizations was an achievement for the organizers. In his speech at the seminar a JKLF leader made some important points:
1)Kashmir struggle feels orphaned now.
2)The discourse set by the movement has been shifted towards good governance.
3)An impression is going to New Delhi that Kashmiri have psychologically accepted defeat.
4)Role and engagement of the Indian civil society with JKLF in 1994 and awarding of life imprisonment to its activists?
The points raised at the seminar are largely a statement of facts. Notwithstanding every point in itself demanding an in-depth analysis but at the same time, these are no jigsaw puzzle. In fact, the process that led to this situation or state of affairs started much earlier. Some see seeds of dissension in the very birth of the multi-party combine and its document of compromise but the vertical division in the multiparty combine in 2002 was it louder manifestation. Historically, schism in the ranks of the leaders’ right from 1933 has taken a toll of the people’s struggle and hugely contributed to their miseries. The only period when Kashmir leadership was organized was in 1931. The immediate dividend of this unity was the appointment of the Glancy Commission. That brought political gains in terms of representation in the government to the aggrieved majority community. In addition, barely a few months later the leadership became a victim of machinations from within and outside the state these divisions in leadership not only defeated the political struggle at every juncture but fragmented the society landing from abyss to abyss and perhaps found its way in our political DNA. Having suffered one after another setback, in the post 1993 scenario it was believed that leadership would draw lessons from the past mistakes and lead the eight two year old political movements to the logical end. Nevertheless, there seems no light across the dark tunnel-it is only historical forces that often operate in such bizarre situations that can perhaps throw up a new class of leadership.
Of all the points raised by JKLF leader, the most important that calls for immediate attention and is like to dominate the political discourse of his and other parties. Reminiscent of the 1965 movement of courting arrest (civil disobedience) for right to self-determination liked by Moulvi Syed, the JKLF also courted arrest-and there was a distinction, amongst 157 that courted arrest there were some women volunteers also. In the life imprisonment to his party cadres, he subtly feels that some senior members of Indian civil society have betrayed him.
In 1994, at the behest of some senior civil society members the JKLF announced unilateral ceasefire, bade farewell to arms and switched to non violent political movement- as was led by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi against British. As transpires from the statement of the leadership the decision for dropping of guns was perhaps taken with tacit. Those in jails would be released and allowed to breathe freely as political workers. True, as a follow up some of its members were released on bail but their cases were not withdrawn as should have happened.
For understanding , why New Delhi, engaged civil society that vigorously during 1993 and 1994 calls for recalling of developments at the international level regarding Kashmir during these years. And how these developments had made New Delhi to look at softer options. Moreover , it was during this period when hints were dropped about ‘porous border’ and ‘joint management’ as an alternative solution. There were reporters that behind the scene the GOI had engaged with Kashmir leaders to see end of ‘insurgency’ in the state. But, some members of Indian civil society were the front runners. It is also important to understand, if the civil society was working independent of the government in New Delhi or it was working as its softer face to see end of the “guerilla warfare in the state”. Ostensibly most of the civil society members from Prof. Khusroo to Kuldip Nayar that visited Kashmir during nineties had a brief from the GOI – the brief was simple to see end to what was termed as armed insurgency. In his autobiography Kuldip Nayar writes how he was roped in Kashmir by Narasimha Rao and takes credit for convincing JKLF Chief Yasin Malik about the “futility of using arms”. (Beyond the lines (pages343). In lieu of ceasefire, there was no formal agreement between Indian civil society and JKLF but apparently there “ was tacit agreement that all cases registered before 1994 against JKLF activists would be withdrawn”. Nor there was any kind announcement by the government assuring safety to the cadres of the organization in recognition of verbal agreement between leader of the party and the civil society. The JKLF leader reposed complete faith in Indian civil society more particularly in Kuldip Nayar to quote him “aap ki zaat mein mujhe yakin hai”
The trust was immediately breached as Sumantra Bose writes in Kashmir Roots of Conflict, ‘Malik was not successful in persevering what had remained of JKLF’ and after ceasefire, three hundred activists of the group were killed. Quoting Malik he writes, “ that since mid-1994 he had lost almost four hundred activists to continuing Indian operations. “page 130). The fact remains that despite provocations the JKLF bided by its decision and adhered to non-violence – that graduated to a level during 2008.
If there was a tacit understanding or a verbal agreement between JKLF leader and the Indian Civil society, it was moral obligation of the Indian civil society to see the government respecting its agreement ..
Z.G.MUHAMMAD is a noted writer and columnist
