Look beyond gun

Look beyond gun

A pattern can now be detected in Kashmir: the force employed to combat militants is met with counterforce by militants. The Shopian attack that took place in the wee hours of Thursday validates this pattern. Yes, there is an asymmetry involved in the casualties that attacks and counterattacks generate but this is what asymmetric war was is all about: a militarily weaker adversary is engaged in mortal combat with a stronger adversary. The saga of attacks and counter attacks goes on with no clear winners or losers emerging from it. The larger point is there can really be no military or militarized approach that will settle Kashmir once for all. What is needed is a political approach that is premised on a multi-stakeholder paradigm. The reasons accrue from the nature of militancy in Kashmir, which are a manifestation of deep and wide sentiment that obtains here. There is an echo of Mao Tse Tung here who, during his guerrilla days, famously stated that “guerrillas must move among the people as a fish swims in water”. The implication of Mao’s analogy, where water stands as a metaphor for people, is as that as long as guerrillas have the support of the people, they can not only survive but also thrive. In Kashmir, this stark reality is corroborated by the huge number of people who had been coming out in droves to help militants trapped in encounters and thousands of others who turn up at militants’ funerals. The inference that can be drawn here is that militants enjoy considerable support in Kashmir. Moreover, from an insurgency point of view, only a handful of active militants are needed to create conditions of considerable violence. This, in the context of Kashmir, is overlaid by the fact that militant killings are not a deterrent for young Kashmiris but an inspiration. The lessons that can be drawn by powers that be are sober and sobering: killing militants will neither resolve the conflict in Kashmir and more will be inspired to join militant ranks thereby exacerbating the conflict. Instead of dealing with the conflict in Kashmir with a militarized approach, prudence suggests that politics and statecraft of a prudent and sagacious nature should be accorded primacy. Broken down, this means instituting a multi-stakeholder approach that looks at the conflict in and over Kashmir in a holistic and integral manner and then devises a robust plan to follow through. All other approaches are doomed, to say the least.

One Response to "Look beyond gun"

  1. G. Din   February 27, 2017 at 3:09 am

    Whenever one describes the situation in Kashmir, one should always compare with the situation in Palestine. That is why the Kashmiri Resistance movement takes cue from Palestinian movement and adopts the same tools, for instance the so-called Intifada. Taking that comparison forward, one must ask what the results of Palestinian intifada have been for Palestinians? Is it hard to imagine that results of Kashmiri intifada won’t be any different, even though adversaries faced may be relatively different? It is also pertinent to underline the fact that territories are ONLY transferred between sovereigns. Thus, an “azaadi” movement has to grasp/snatch that sovereignty (Bolsheviks in Czarist Russia) or, alternatively, get another sovereign to snatch it from the current sovereign and then gift it to that movement (NATO in Bosnia). There is no example or precedent in the world history for sovereignty being willingly handed over to a rebellious people. In no age before ours, did a sovereign behave like a push-over. Nor is India (in Kashmir) or Israel (in Palestine) or China (in Xinjiang, Tibet) or Russia (in Chechnya) or even Phillipines (in Mindanao) going ever to behave like a pushover.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.