Why anger in Kashmir is welling up against the armed forces
Even the Army had admitted many times that innocent people have been killed.
It is for a long time that people of Kashmir have raised their voice against human right violations committed by the armed forces, who admitted many times that innocent killings had taken place and apologised for it. In some cases, punishments were also awarded. But largely, police and paramilitary forces said in situations of sponsored armed militancy, innocent people got involved and sometimes got killed.
There are families throughout Kashmir with details of atrocities committed by the armed forces, from time to time and many cases were lodged against them. There are numerous cases still pending in courts. Then, there are families whose dear ones disappeared and could never be traced.
Laws like the AFSPA and Disturbed Areas Act were responsible for civilian killings by the armed forces. These laws gave immunity to forces of not being accountable for any of their actions in the field. While the Disturbed Areas Act was suspended later, the AFSPA continued.
Many sections of the AFPSA make it a draconian law. Since there is no effective mechanism to control the misuse of this law, certain sections among the forces committed grave errors of judgment on many occasions and almost the entire population in Kashmir became angry with them.
Following are a few examples of how this law was misused by the forces: The infamous Machil fake encounter on 29–30 April 2010 in which three innocent youths were taken into custody at Nadihal Baramulla and then they were taken to Machil (a distant place in Kupwara district) and killed in cold blood. This inhuman act created a commotion in Kashmir.
A widespread public outcry compelled the Army to institute an inquiry, which established the guilt of the forces who had committed the crime in expectation of rewards.
That unfortunate incident roused intense feelings of anger and led thousands of youths to indulge in stone pelting that again attracted disproportionate response from the forces killing 120 youngsters. Tufail Mattoo, a seventeen-year-old boy, died of a teargas shell while returning from a tuition class. The entire Kashmir rose in revolt and joined the mourning. The devastated family is still fighting for justice in court.
The Army subsequently accepted the crime and apologised. It also claimed that punishments would be awarded. However, punishments were not made public. Much earlier, there were many incidents of killings of innocent people by the armed forces and the people of Kashmir felt convinced on the complicity of the forces in such incidents. The Chattisinghpora massacre on 20 March 2000 caused another wound in the psyche of Kashmiris.
While Hizbul Mujahideen and other militant organizations denied their involvement in this heinous crime against Sikhs, the state and central governments remained silent and held militant outfits responsible, without giving any solid proof.
The Pathribal and Brakpura killings towards the end of March 2000, in the wake of Chattisinghpora massacre, attracted attention at the international level. The families, who suffered, raised an alarm and people joined in support. They described these killings as cold-blooded murders. Subsequently, the CBI confirmed before the Supreme Court on 19 March 2012 that the encounter at Pathirbal in which seven people were killed by the Army was a fake encounter.
The Supreme Court asked the Army to institute a credible inquiry on its own and to ensure public confidence in the rule of law and dispensation of justice. Meanwhile, the state government instituted a high-level judicial inquiry led by Justice SR Pandian, a retired judge of the Supreme Court.
This commission went into the killings at Brakpora and concluded its report in five months. Justice Pandian established the fact that the act of firing on innocent people at Brakpora was unwarranted and unjustified and seven officials of SOG Anantnag, Camp Brakpora, were directly responsible for this massacre.
The unwarranted and unjustified use of force against common people, mostly youth with the support of the AFSPA and other laws, has caused widespread anger among the people. That is why the killing of Burhan Wani, a Hizbul Mujahideen commander, on July 8, 2016 proved to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.
That killing led to unprecedented shutdown for more than four months when all businesses, enterprises, transport, educational institutions, that is, all economic, social and political activities in Kashmir came to a standstill.
More than 150 persons, mostly teenagers got killed and more than 3,000 boys and girls got eye injuries due to pellets fired by the armed forces. Many of them were even blinded. Undoubtedly anger of the Kashmiris especially the youth reached its height.
India should realise that Kashmir is a political dispute that must be resolved politically. Intelligence agencies should not be allowed to deal with political concerns. Even Army generals have said that bullets cannot resolve the crisis and the politicians must play their role.
But then, the security agencies had also seen the reason to help the process of a dialogue with the people who mattered on the ground. It was thought that a workable process of dialogue could be initiated with the then Hizbul Mujahideen commander Abdul Majid Dar and the Government of India nominee Kamal Panday, the then home secretary.
Pandey met Hizbul Mujahideen commanders Riyaz Rasool, Masood, Farooq Riyaz and Zaffar. The People’s Political Front chief and Hizbul Mujahideen nominated mediator Fazal-Haq Qureshi and his two associates, Musadiq Aadil and GM Naikoo, were chosen to help in the process of dialogue. This led to an offer of ceasefire made by Dar, which was welcomed by the then prime minister and home minister.
The dialogue process with Hizbul Mujahideen was sustained for some time, although there was strain within the Hizbul ranks because of divergent opinions on the whole subject. Later, Home Secretary Padmanabhan held talks with Dar and his commanders. However, the talks couldn’t go beyond the first round. Dar was shot dead by unknown gunmen at Sopore on 23 March 2003. The rest is history of how Hizbul Mujahideen shaped on ground.
While the militancy had got reduced considerably and it appeared largely to be a phenomenon of the past, a political solution of the problem should have been found to reduce the tensions. Alongside promotion of a dialogue process with Pakistan, there should have been a decisive dialogue with the people of Kashmir.
The Atal Bihari Vajpayee government at the Centre and thereafter the Manmohan Singh government tried to organise a process of dialogue with Pakistan, but so far no tangible results could be obtained. Many a luminary took recourse to track-II diplomacy, but nothing materialised into a situation that could be characterised as a turning point in the ties between the two countries.
I also tried to organise a dialogue and my efforts bore some fruit when Mirwaiz Umer Farooq led a delegation of Hurriyat comprising Abdul Gani Bhat, Molvi Abbas Ansari, Agha Hassan and Bilal Lone to meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at his residence on 5 September 2005. The agencies were deadly opposed to a scheduled meeting like this with the Hurriyat leadership. They did not succeed as the PM had made up his mind.
Finally, the then national security adviser, MK Narayanan, persuaded the principal secretary to the PM, Kutty Nair, to fix a meeting during the day in South Block. But I insisted that the meeting should take place at his residence (7 Race Course Road) and it had to be open-ended. The PM agreed and the two-and-a-half hour meeting finally took place on September 5, 2005.
The prime minister was much impressed with the discussions held with the Hurriyat. Sources close to him had confirmed that Bhat had made good contribution in the discussions and he later had briefed the media properly. Unfortunately, the process could not proceed further, essentially because the security agencies were not comfortable with it.
On the eve of the meeting, the PM had been told by some senior officers in the PMO that the Hurriyat would itself give a written request for a meeting with the PM. But, I had convinced the prime minister that such a thing was not possible and it amounted to showing the Hurriyat leadership in poor light, which would not be in the national interest.
I had advised the prime minister that unless respect was shown to the separatist leadership, no meaningful dialogue would be possible. It goes to the credit of Prime Minister Singh he agreed with me and a meeting with the Hurriyat was set up properly.
There is another interesting incident connected with the dialogue. The top bosses of the intelligence sought help of a senior civil servant with Kashmir connection, who flew to Srinagar on the eve of the dialogue, to seek a written request from Mirwaiz Umer Farooq for scheduling a meeting with the prime minister, but such a thing didn’t happen.
The Union of India must take serious notice of what former home minister P Chidambaram had to say. He has openly voiced the need for revoking the draconian AFSPA in public interest. During his time as Union minister, he had also placed before the Cabinet things that were going wrong in Kashmir and the process had to be reversed.
Chidambaram had emphasised that the political problem needs to be resolved politically. Instead of appreciating his timely advice, some of his colleagues, including the then defence minister, had misunderstood his advocacy for a policy shift in Kashmir.
He is much more misunderstood by the present dispensation at the Centre. The ruling party members and others don’t hesitate to give him lessons on “nationalism”.