Deciphering Jamhuriyat, Kashmiriyat and Insaniyat

Shujaat Bukhari

For nearly two months now, Kashmir has been embroiled in an unprecedented unrest that refuses to die down despite the iron hand tactics of the government that has given the valley the longest spell of curfew. With the theories that unrest is handiwork of “handful” or “five percent” being parroted, a political intervention remains elusive. It is New Delhi’s responsibility to reach out and spell out how it really wants to bring a solution to the current phase of uprising. Notwithstanding the fact that Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) that is in coalition with Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) has failed to pursue its “political agenda” as specified in the Agenda of Alliance (AoA), Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Rajnath Singh have repeatedly talked about addressing and approaching Kashmir within the ambit of “Insaniyat, Jamhuriyat and Kashmiriyat”.

What do these three expressions mean to an ordinary Kashmiri and why they have failed to strike any chord with them? Repeating them without following their substance have rendered them meaningless and have not created any space for the dialogue. These platitudes were in fact used by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to placate the sentiments of the people who have been craving for a solution to the long pending political dispute. Not many agree that he was sincere but a forward movement on finding a common ground that could help to take us to a solution could be seen with both India and Pakistan committing to a lasting solution. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has invoked Vajpayee’s policy based on these three expressions at least seven times since December 2013, five months before he took over as the Prime Minister with a brute majority. It seemed that this “strong” Prime Minister, which Vajpayee was not, would fill all those gaps but he obviously lacked intention. In over two years, Prime Minister has not taken any step that would fit in the paradigm of these tired expressions. For an average Kashmiri, these have been grossly misused rather abused only to silence them when they tried to rise against the injustice and denial of rights.

JAMHURIYAT

Common perception is that democracy or Jamhuriyat has never been allowed to move beyond Lakhanpur, the last point bordering the Punjab state. Right from 1947, the rulers, no matter how big or influential, have been thrust on the people. Elections have often been rigged to select the people.  As is the common belief, which many now rebut, 1977 assembly elections were the only fair ones after 1947 and later 2002 and the rest with certain degree of transparency and fairness. But it was the assembly election of 1987 that proved to be the turning point in the history of Kashmir, pushing thousands of youth, who had reposed faith in Indian democracy, to armed rebellion. The way those elections were rigged that proved to be the last nail in the coffin of Indian democracy in Kashmir. They (the youth who were involved in that election process) had seen it as a space that could help find the resolution of the problem besides managing the governance on their own terms. What an average Kashmiri wanted was political empowerment that has eluded them for long time. After the militancy broke out, the elected governments did come back but they too lacked empowerment with strings being pulled directly from Delhi. While the election to Assembly is always projected as an answer to demand of “Azadi”, a resolution (for granting autonomy) passed by the same Assembly in 2000 was disregarded with contempt by Delhi. Not only has been this democracy in Jammu and Kashmir different from rest of India, the way the democratic spaces have been choked in Kashmir have further dented it. There is even the difference between two regions of Kashmir and Jammu when it comes to allowing its practice. For example, Jammu University has a Students Union but in Kashmir University it is denied. Addressing the separatists, former Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed would call the fight with them democracy which he would paraphrase as “Battle of Ideas”. But that battle has remained confined to ideas only. Democracy in Kashmir has always been used by the state apparatus. Dialogue has found its way only between 2003 and 2007 when Vajpayee government engaged with separatists, but that derailed as India-Pakistan relations hit the lowest ebb and Delhi could not offer anything to them except that they were discredited among their own people. If that  of Jamhuriyat will be again in practice there are no takers.

HUMANITY (INSANIYAT)

‘Insaniyat’ was actually the only expression Vajpayee used first, in response to a question at a news conference at Technical Airport in Srinagar 2004. He was referring to the ambit when asked that those who challenge India’s rule in Kashmir don’t want to have dialogue within the framework of Indian Constitution. The dialogue did start but it is difficult to say that the framework was of Insaniyat. It is not only about the dialogue as such but the process and the atmosphere that precedes it which has to be within those contours. For Kashmir, Insaniyat would be an end to human rights violations, investigation into 2300 unmarked graves, end to pellet guns and excessive use of force on the protesters. Justice to victims in the cases like Pathribal, Ganderbal and Machil fake encounters as also to those whose loved ones have disappeared in the custody of security forces.  It would also mean end to humiliation that people are subjected to in everyday life. One would not condone violence on any side, but the magnitude is important. When we talk about Insaniyat it has be practiced on the ground. Repeated assertions in public meetings would not make it insaniyat. On ground no such effort has been made that would make us believe that this Daira (circle) of Insaniyat is working so it is limited to speeches and cajoling.

KASHMIRIYAT

This expression has been worst hit in Kashmir. It has been used, misused and abused to the extent that today’s Kashmiri Muslim has disowned it. Kashmiriyat was coined to define a unique history and cultural identity that encompassed the communal harmony, tolerance and brotherhood. For a long time it was a state endorsed Kashmiri nationalist identity. It essentially defined a composite culture that was unique and had hardly any comparison in South Asia.  A British author explained it as “Kashmiri exceptionalism”. But after 1990, this concept too was divided between Kashmiri Muslims and Pandits and with the state using it as part of its narrative to counter the separatism, its credibility got further eroded and is being seen by many as part of the government project. It was former Governor S K Sinha, the man responsible for Amarnath land row, who tried to reintroduce it with his own colour. So in the contemporary Kashmir, the term Kashmiriyat is contested one and when it is used often by the state, people read it with suspicion. For Kashmiris, the Kashmiriyat is tolerance but it has received a beating not only within Kashmir, but outside as well. So even if the “real” Kashmiriyat as it existed is rediscovered it may still not strike a chord with the people. What is important is to show respect to these expressions by adhering to their core and not merely repeating them. They have been defeated on ground by various forces and if they really bear hope, only practical steps could get them out of the oblivion. Till that time they could be part of the best script that does not hold any promise.