THE death of Burhan Wani in an encounter with the security forces in Kashmir has impacted an important section of the inhabitants of the valley who have come out on the streets and are fighting against the army and paramilitary forces because the killing has been “perceived” as an unwanted action on the part of security forces of India. It deserves to be clearly stated that the death of Wani has acted as a trigger and the angry section of the population has come out on the streets and the first fortnight of July, 2016, has witnessed large-scale demonstrations and protests by Kashmiris in the valley. It is a well-known fact that a section of society is ready to confront the bullets of the security forces only when they have deep-seated grievances against the State which is considered “unresponsive” to their demands and perceived grievances. The violent response of a section of Kashmiri people in the valley to Wani’s death clearly reveals that a feeling of hostility exists between them and functionaries of the State and this disturbed social situation in Kashmir requires a deft handling by Indian policy-makers. They must keep in mind that a section of Indian citizens living in the valley are “aggrieved” and “angry” with the manner in which the Kashmir question has been tackled by the Centre and the government of Jammu and Kashmir.

The causes of the prevailing social disturbances in Kashmir Valley need to be identified before any solution can be found and problems resolved. First, there is no denying the fact that the complicated and difficult Kashmir problem is an inheritance or legacy of post-partition India, and in spite of its ups and downs for the last more than six decades, the current phase of Indian politics, beginning with 2014 when Narendra Modi became Prime Minister and when PDP formed a coalition government in Jammu and Kashmir with BJP in 2015, has created serious “doubts” among a large section of Kashmiri population of the valley because the Hindu Sangh Parivar and its political face BJP are not acceptable because of their ideology of Hindu Rashtravad based on “one language, one nation, one country”. The Hindu Sangh Parivar is ideologically and politically committed to a Unitarian Hindu Country, in which a federal system of state autonomy is not acceptable and least of all Article 370 which guarantees “special status” to the Kashmiris. And this is the reason that Hindu Rashtravadis have always been a “suspect” to the Kashmiris. Hence, PDP’s Mehbooba Mufti, who succeeded her later father Mufti Mohammad Sayeed as Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, is on a weak wicket because a very important section of Kashmiris in the valley has serious doubts about her secular and pro-Kashmiri credentials and the central government of the BJP hardly inspires confidence among the federalist Kashmiris who are voters of “autonomy” for Kashmir and they find Modi as an opponent to their demand of “autonomy”. The present situation which has arisen out of militant commander Wani’s death has been compounded because the present political dispensations, both at the Centre and in the state, lack “credibility”, and because of this fact, neither Mehbooba nor Modi can be trusted to find solution to the ongoing social unrest in the valley.

Second, because of the special situation prevailing in Kashmir, the Indian State has deployed army and paramilitary forces to deal with infiltration from Pakistan and every day “encounters” take place between Indian armed forces and “terrorists” from Pakistan. The Indian State is responsible for the security and defence of its territory; however, the people of the valley have come to perceive Indian presence as “an army of occupation”. It is a well-known fact that the presence of armed forces within populated areas of any country for more than six decades creates many “uneasy” situations and relations between citizens and army get strained, even inimical. The Supreme Court had on July 8, 2016, while pronouncing a judgement on the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, observed that if armed forces were permitted to kill citizens of our country on mere allegation or suspicion that they are enemies of the State, not only the rule of law but our democracy would also be in “grave danger”. The presence of army in Jammu and Kashmir has aggrieved a section of society and accusations of “fake encounter” are regularly made by Kashmiris whenever army claims to have killed a Pakistani terrorist. This fact has aggravated the situation and “distrust” exists between Kashmiris and the Indian State.

Third, it is the responsibility of the government of India to find “solution” to the Kashmir question, especially by engaging our own Kashmiri political and social formations and groups into a sustained dialogue. Pakistan is a factor in complicating the Kashmir question; however, it is the responsibility of the government of India to win over the trust of our own citizens by recognising this fact that a section of the Kashmiris has accumulated “grievances” against Indian State and its role in Jammu and Kashmir. The first and foremost step which should be taken in Jammu and Kashmir to restore normalcy is to shift army and paramilitary forces to India-Pakistan border and it is the responsibility of local state government and local police forces to deal with local civil disturbances. The presence of Indian army has become an eyesore to the Kashmiris who have come to identify Indian army as an “occupation” forces and this is not good either for the army or the Indian citizens of Jammu and Kashmir. Democratically elected state government, supported by the central government, is to be assigned complete freedom to tackle its own law and order problems because dealing a state as permanently disturbed area to be handed over to the army is quite counterproductive because when citizens perceive army as the “other”, it loses effectiveness. Further, political problems have to be resolved “politically” and solutions have to be found by involving formal institutions of democracy and informal people in groups and this broad-based “dialogue” can bring some normalcy to the present tense situation.

Jammu and Kashmir has groups and factions outside the formal political process and these groups and individuals should also be involved in finding solution to the present conflict in the valley. The “separatist” groups and individuals should be invited for dialogues to resolve the Kashmir problem. The “separatists” should not be treated as “untouchables” because they are living and active within the valley and if they are allowed to “live” within the valley, it is beyond comprehension that they are not acceptable for an all-party “dialogue”.  BJP, on its own as a party of Hindus, cannot hold conversation with disgruntled elements in the valley, and hence, it is imperative that all parties in Parliament, along with all parties in Jammu and Kashmir, put their heads together by keeping in mind the gravity of the situation as it prevails in the valley. The outside forces always fish in the troubled water and Pakistan can be neutralised only if it does not have local support in Jammu and Kashmir. A distinction should be made between Jammu and Kashmir as a territory and Jammu and Kashmir inhabited by the citizens of India and the Indian State has the primary responsibility to win over the loyalty of its own citizens who seem to be alienated and angry with India. This is the lesson from the situation which has emerged in Jammu and Kashmir in July, 2016 -- our own people have to be won over and peace restored in the valley.