In this context, the deeply
problematic Kashmir issue, especially when it
is raised in connection with terrorism, offers a unique opportunity to the
suggested authoritarian project. In fact, the opportunity is maximized when the
situation in ‘terrorist-infested’ Kashmir can
be projected as an attack on the sovereignty and the constitutional framework
of India .
The attack on the Indian parliament and the subsequent conviction of Mohammad
Afzal Guru as the sole surviving ‘terrorist’ accomplished that job for the entire
‘nationalist’ right wing sections of the population, especially the Sangh
parivar. Therefore, it is no wonder that, on every December 13 (the day the
parliament was attacked), the RSS and BJP used to raise the pitch demanding the
execution of Afzal Guru. It is ironical though that it is the second UPA
government that finally hanged Afzal just months before the general elections of
2014. Such was the importance of Afzal Guru for Indian electoral democracy.
The other, dissident side of the
story is that, ever since the trial on the parliament attack case began,
democratic opposition to the entire legal process kept growing. By the time
Guru was hanged and buried inside the Tihar jail, a considerable dissident
literature was widely available. In a powerful review of this literature, along with
his own careful reading of the case, the eminent historian and legal expert A.
G. Noorani wrote (Why Afzal Guru Matters, Frontline, May 17, 2013),
The execution was perpetrated for blatantly electoral
ends. But the ferocity of the reaction in Kashmir
shocked its perpetrators in the government and others in New Delhi Kashmir and their rulers in New Delhi
This explains why Afzal Guru’s death aroused the wrath
it did. Unlike Maqbool Butt, he was
not a symbol. He personified the lot of his people. They suffer at
the hands of the very forces and the agencies as he did; until he was put to
death. If acquitted, he would have spoken freely. He knew too much. The man had
to be killed. It was a frame-up like the famous Birmingham Six and the
Guildford Four. Only this time, there was no judicial redress.
Afzal’s
hanging signalled a disturbing divide in the visible, articulate, non-subaltern
public domain. On the one hand, there is the vast ‘nationalist’ crowd for whom
Afzal was an enemy of the state and his execution was a patriotic action. On
the other, there is the curious mix of a very small group of ‘brave
human rights activists’ and the miserable millions in the valley for whom
Afzal’s hanging ‘personified the lot of his people’ and signalled the collapse
of real democratic order. The small but determined meetings of remembrance that
have been taking place every year since 9 February 2013—mostly in Kashmir but
elsewhere in the country as well—symbolized this divide.
It
is reasonable to assume that the right-wing authoritarian regime currently in
power is very aware of this divide. It knows that commemoration of Afzal’s
hanging is vastly unpopular with the sections of the population that fill the
audience of the mainstream media. So, by taking ‘tough measures’ on these
ceremonies, the regime can safely enforce its authority with popular approval
while breaking the back of the dissident movement around Kashmir .
The project is central to the communal agenda of the Sangh since an attack on
the independent identity of Kashmir is ipso
facto an attack on Islam in the jaundiced eyes of the parivar. The great opportunity
is that, to emphasize, this communal task can be pursued with popular
patriotic approval.
In
fact, there was a significant precedence to this plan last year, also in JNU.
Apparently, a small group of students invited none other than S.A.R Geelani himself
to address a commemorative meeting on Afzal on 9 February 2015 . To remind, along with Afzal,
Geelani and two others were also charged with participation in the attack on
the parliament. The notorious POTA court sentenced Geelani, Afzal and one other
to death. After spending over a year in the death row, Geelani was finally
released after the High Court acquitted him of all charges. Needless to say,
Geelani was brutally tortured during the interrogation stage.
Thus,
after Afzal’s death, Dr. Geelani has emerged as the ‘bearer’ of the
dark image comprising Kashmir , azadi, Islam, terrorism,
and the attack on the parliament. That meeting last year was also attacked by a
rival student group in JNU. We may presume that proper instructions were
conveyed in advance this year for the concerned parties to take appropriate
action. The threat of tough measures emanating from the highest authorities
signaled the determination of the regime to make full use of the opportunity.
If
the commemoration of the death of a ‘terrorist convict’ is an opportunity for
the right-wing regime, it is a difficult problem for the mainstream
left-liberal opposition. The mainstream left did not cover itself with glory
during the entire political process leading to conviction and execution of
Afzal Guru and the subsequent ‘ferocity of the reaction in Kashmir .’
To my knowledge, with notable individual exceptions, the mainstream left as a
whole never gave any definite support either to the Kashmiri freedom struggle
or to protest on the ‘great miscarriage of justice’ regarding Afzal Guru. This
is because, within a statist framework, each of these causes tests the idea of
democratic dissent at the extremities of the framework. These causes challenge
the otherwise progressive left to face two sharp issues:
(a) Do the people of Kashmir have a right to self-determination even if the
Indian parliament had unanimously resolved in favour of inclusion of Kashmir within the union of India
(b) Is it legitimate to
protest the judgement of the Supreme Court of India after all legal avenues have
been duly exhausted and the President of India had given his seal of approval?
The
dilemma is glaring.
While affirmative answers to these questions appear to challenge the supremacy
of the parliament and the Apex
Court
(To be concluded)
No comments:
Post a Comment