Defining normalcy in Kashmir

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

December 31st is an appropriate day to take stock of the year that went by – so why not critically examine the claim that Kashmir has had a peaceful year? To me, the argument that 2011 has been a peaceful year for Kashmir is an oxymoron, demonstrates ignorance, and generally defeats the purpose of meaningful and incisive political analysis. But why not consider 2011 to be a peaceful year? After all, this year has witnessed massive reduction in militant infiltration from across the border, highest number of tourists visiting Kashmir in many years, no massive demonstrations on the streets of Kashmir, and no pulverizing bomb blasts as used to be case earlier. That, indeed, is the official version of normalcy and peace in Kashmir. This statist analysis is not completely off the mark because the state always bases its interpretation of normalcy and violence on the basis of a definition that suits its purposes and privileges itself. The problem arises when this statist definition is posited against other definitions of violence and normalcy which privilege human beings and societies rather than the state. In other words, your definition colors your analysis. Let’s examine this further.

What was normal about 2011?
2011 ended with Kashmiris shivering in their homes due to acute power shortages. The state government has been unable to provide a basic necessity such as electricity to the people of Kashmir in sub-zero temperatures. What is even more appalling is that the state bureaucracy and the political class have ‘royally’ (and may I say shamelessly) abdicated their responsibility and shifted base to Jammu where the weather is better, leaving Kashmiris at the mercy of extreme temperatures with no electricity. If the state administrative machinery were to continue to be based in Srinagar, they would at least have tired to make the power situation better.

There has not been any great surge in the development of the state in any sphere in 2011: no new infrastructure development worth mentioning, no sufficient employment generation, and no significant external investment. The dreaded AFSPA has neither been lifted nor amended despite the ruling party’s high-pitched arguments for it and futile grand-standing. Not even once did Kashmir’s ruling party threaten to pull out of the UPA coalition in New Delhi to put pressure on the latter to remove AFSPA from Kashmir. There have been a number of custodial killings and high-handedness by the security forces. Even in 2011 Kashmiris faced the humiliation of having to go through multiple identity checks and unfriendly body frisking by security forces in their own neighbourhood. 2011 also witnessed the still-unraveling story of 2000 odd unmarked graves in Kashmir whose unfortunate occupants and their grief-stricken families still await any form of justice. The Kashmir interlocutors went around in the state talking to various people (excluding, of course, those who matter), wrote an exhaustive report and submitted to New Delhi: not many believe that any action will be taken on the basis of that even as some of the interlocutors claim from time to time that their recommendations are being followed by the government!

Why at least some people tend to call 2011 a peaceful (which literally means ‘full of peace’!) year is because a) as I pointed out above the focus is on what happens to the state and not to the people and, b) because of the problem in the definition of its opposite, violence. When the state defines violence, it takes extra care to address only direct forms of violence and not those indirect and structural forms of violence. Structural violence is widely defined as the “avoidable disparity between the potential ability to fulfill basic needs and their actual fulfillment”. To understand structural violence, one needs t look at mundane things such as availability of electricity, jobs, quality higher education, respect for human rights, ability to live with dignity etc. I don’t need to repeat here the ‘quality’ of human rights protection in the valley! Take another example: Greater Kashmir reported recently that J&K contributes 32% of energy to National Hydroelectric Power Corporation as against 68% by all the other Indian states. And yet, Kashmir seems to suffer from power shortages every winter. Now that’s a form of structural violence, isn’t it?

Normalcy for whom?
Who does the “Kashmir is normal” argument benefit? The ruling dispensation, the Chief Minister and, of course, New Delhi. Claims about Kashmir’s return to normalcy increase the star power of the Chief Minister and makes him even more of a darling of the elite English media in Delhi, it sells New Delhi’s pet story of “Kashmir’s normalization” which it has been choreographing for some time now, and of course the Indian army which can now take pride in the fact that they have ‘defeated’ terrorism! But does this normalcy story of 2011 make any difference to the average Kashmiri or, at the macro level, does it help resolve the political problem in Kashmir? No. Indeed it is true that there was a reduction in the instances of direct violence against Kashmiris in 2011. This opportunity, however, should have been used by the powers that be to address the other entrenched forms of violence rather than busying themselves in fantasizing about the imagined return of normalcy into the Kashmir valley. In short, 2011 will be remembered as a year that was wasted due to the lack of credible, courageous and visionary political leadership.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, 1 January 2012. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Jan/1/defining-normalcy-in-kashmir-8.asp )