Amarnath Land Deal

[ramana]

A very good example of news media distortion and bias.

Divided Valley

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Divided valley
David Devadas
Wednesday, August 13, 2008  20:36 IST     



<b>The turmoil in Jammu has revived fears of secession and boosted Islamism</b> <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->

The current violence in and around Jammu has promoted the two-nation theory. <b>There is a growing tendency there to see not only Kashmiris but all Muslims as recalcitrant anti-nationals — to be taught a lesson by flag-waving nationalists.</b>

<i>This is totally untrue. Only the PAK flag waving secessionists are seen as anti-nationals.}</i>

In the valley too, the highway blockade has sharpened the perception that Kashmiris/Muslims are persecuted in Hindu-dominated India (the valley press uses words like ‘fanatic’ and ‘extremists’ to describe Jammu agitators). Further, it has not only resuscitated secessionism but also boosted Islamism — by buttressing the Utopian construct already budding in public discourse that Kashmiri means Muslim and, since Islam is pristine, social, political and moral imperfections must stem from flawed religious practice, for which the blame lies with Indian “occupation.” That increasingly used term is, of course, calculated to club Kashmir with Palestine, and an economic blockade adds grist to that mill.

This has distressing implications. <b>Yet, the effect of Jammu’s violence on the valley’s psyche is only critical concern. For Kashmir’s counter-agitation has focused on economic effects — and economic-cum-political opportunities, as in the Muzaffarabad chalo campaign.</b> It has not turned communal so far; the Amarnath pilgrimage has gone on quite amicably.

The other concern is the relatively neglected area between Jammu and the valley. Along with Kashmiris, Gujjar and other Muslims from beyond the valley have been targeted, causing them to flee home with the virus of communal hatred. Attacking Muslims from these other areas is curious, since they had nothing to do with the agitation against the transfer of land for the Amarnath shrine, the success of which sparked Jammu’s violence. It is also very dangerous.

Large parts of the state near the Chenab, stretching from Gul Gulabgarh, Kishtwar and Bhaderwah to Rajouri and Poonch have a nearly balanced population of Hindus and Muslims. Given vast isolated stretches of difficult terrain — plus the fact that many (largely Hindu) Village Defence Committees are armed with self-loading rifles - a civil war in this mountainous stretch could be catastrophic.

If Muslims are forced to flee these areas, as happened in Jammu in 1947, the BJP may gain electoral advantage. Hindutva-based nationalists might also see territorial advantage with regard to <b>the India-Pakistan peace plan currently on the anvil — which apparently envisages autonomous self-rule for the valley and areas around it.</b> In fact, any such perception of advantage would be blinkered. A simple referendum would have kept these areas out of the envisaged autonomous region; for the majority of Muslims (including ethnic Kashmiris) there would not want to be appended to the valley.

<b>Whether or not the Jammu violence sparks further communal upheaval, however, there is no gainsaying the intensity of the rage. Even government employees ranging from police officers to doctors have reportedly joined or advised the agitation.</b> Since the pilgrimage to the shrine has not been affected, one must search deeper for the causes of this fury. A cynical explanation popular in the valley is “India” allowed, if not covertly organised, the blockade. There are signs that higher echelons in the state government were caught off guard and that firmer action was then stymied from within.

<b>For 60 years now, other parts of the state have resentfully watched the valley being pampered. Some even accuse valley Kashmiris of simultaneously playing to advantage their special position as predominantly Muslim and the threat of secession.</b> Indeed, People’s Democratic Party (PDP) leader <b>Mufti Mohammed Sayeed argued in 2002 that the chief minister must be from the valley. The wrath of Pandit migrants over the loss of life and property  in 1990 also fuelled the fire.</b> And fear that Hindu aspirations are getting short shrift in the India-Pakistan deal-making too might be at play. History surely is. Most Kashmiri Muslims were wretchedly impoverished during the Dogra rule but have dominated since. The result: each side sees itself as victim of the other.

Since geopolitics has lumped their destinies together, it is imperative that animosities ease so that both may share their various fears and aspirations. At present, there appears little hope for that. The BJP might gain political ground in Jammu. However, secessionists have regained  greater ground in the valley. The via media at least partly acceptable to all sides which the PDP had tried to creatively forge — almost making the Hurriyat irrelevant until this June — is the biggest loser.

The writer is author of In Search of a Future, the Story of Kashmir.
This article was written before Hurriyat leader Sheikh Abdul Aziz (Mirwaiz group) was killed in police firing during a march to Muzaffarabad.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I thought that in Jammu all the communities are together in the protests. Why this expert is lying?