Junaid Ahmed
In the wake of civilian killings by security forces in Gool quarter of Ramban, the revocation of AFSPA is likely to dominate the discourse. There is a deliberate attempt by some interested quarters to make AFSPA look like a more serious issue. They are actually working by design — to portray AFSPA as the mother of all ills in Kashmir.
This is to trivialize the main issue of Kashmir.
AFSPA is essentially a law enacted for empowering armed forces to combat militants. This is another story that the armed forces misuse the law to kill, harass and humiliate unarmed civilians. Just for the academic discussion let us agree on revocation of the law, but who would solve the main problem that created situation for promulgation of AFSPA.
At the most, it could be an issue of primary importance for human rights activists but for many others it is secondary. That exclusively makes it as an internal discourse for the government of India. Occupation is inherently lawless, otherwise it would not be occupation in the first place. Expecting it to thus abide by or abrogate certain laws is ludicrous.
Kashmir freedom movement is not a civil rights movement. It makes absolutely no sense to demand revocation of laws to supposedly ensure more freedom and security. Engaging with the state manufactured discourse on AFSPA in any way also entails degrading the struggle. Although there are no indications from government of India to repeal the law, at least in near future, yet it continues to gain mileage out of debating it.
Arguments and counter arguments on its continuation or revocation are just part of the game to divert attention from the main issue.
The main issue in Kashmir is the overwhelming Military occupation.
An often cited argument by many, even by many from Pro-freedom camp, is that AFSPA emboldens the Indian occupational forces. India has already been bold enough to occupy Kashmir since the last 66 years. Scrapping AFSPA will not make India leave Kashmir.
Such is the state of submission to Indian narrative of AFSPA that no sooner a militant attack takes place than conspiracy theories are discussed about how it was an inside job, meant to keep AFSPA in place. As if, a section of Indian occupational set-up is sympathetic to our cause, while another is hostile. It is indeed absurd.
A resistance narrative must be completely different from the occupational narrative. But unfortunately in Kashmir the occupational narrative overlaps the resistance narrative, insidiously furthering the ‘integral part’ agenda.
The complaining nature of resistance gives an impression of the resistance and its narrative itself being occupied. It is a tragedy. Indian media’s silence over Gool killings and our displeasure over it is yet another example of the complaining nature of our resistance.
Kashmir resistance will be much better off with its own discourses and shunning the complaining nature. This is a battle of minds and ideas at the end of the day.
(The views are author’s own. Send your contributions to [email protected])
