For the past month,
while the attention of the world has been fixed on every dramatic twist in the
US presidential election, the renewal of armed conflict between India and
Pakistan has barely touched the headlines. In the past few weeks, the two
nuclear states have, between them, killed two dozen civilians and injured
scores of others in exchanges of artillery fire across the disputed border –
known as the “line of control” – that divides Kashmir into parts controlled by
India and Pakistan.
The latest
flare-up in the long-running war of attrition between the two
countries comes on the heels of a bloody summer of protest and repression in
Kashmir that has now been erased from memory by the banging of war drums in
Delhi and Islamabad. Since July, when the killing of a young militant leader sparked a
furious civilian uprising across the Kashmir valley, the Indian
state has responded with singular ruthlessness, killing more than 90 people.
Most shocking of all has been the breaking up of demonstrations with
“non-lethal” pellet ammunition, which has blinded hundreds of Kashmiri
civilians.
In four months, 17,000 adults and
children have been injured, nearly five thousand have been arrested, and an
entire population spent the summer under the longest curfew in the history of
curfews in Kashmir.
All this has been quickly forgotten in
the past two months. On 18 September, a small group of jihadi fighters, widely
believed to have come from Pakistan, staged a commando raid on an Indian army
camp near the northern Kashmir town of Uri, killing 19 Indian soldiers – the
deadliest attack on Indian security forces in Kashmir in two decades. Indian
politicians quickly blamed Pakistan, which the country’s home minister
described as a “terrorist state”, while Pakistani leaders made the implausible
claim that India had
staged the attack itself to distract from the protests in Kashmir.
The Indian prime minister, Narendra
Modi, who came into office promising to take a harder line with Pakistan,
announced that “those behind this despicable attack will not go unpunished”. At
the end of September, India retaliated with what it called a “surgical strike”
against alleged militant camps in Pakistan-controlled territory, which,
according to an army statement, “caused significant damage to terrorists”.
Pakistan denied the attack ever took place – claiming that there had been
nothing more than the usual exchange of fire across the border. Meanwhile, an ugly
war of words continued to escalate in TV news studios, some of which were
refurbished as pop-up war rooms.
Advertisement
Since then, the relationship between
the two countries, which is at the best of times characterised by varying
degrees of hate – depending upon the political temperature in Kashmir – has
soured to the point where both are now suddenly finding spies in each others’
diplomatic missions. A tit-for-tat nearly every day, on TV, on social media, in
ambassadorial corps – even in the realm of culture, where India has effectively
banned Pakistani actors from working in Bollywood, and Pakistan has banned the
screening of Indian films in cinemas. According to recent reports, civilians
caught in the crossfire have been evacuated, hundreds of schools shut, and
local residents pressed into service to ferry supplies to troops stationed high
in the Himalayas. As always, the victims of the artillery duels
have been the civilians living on either side of a border that did not exist
until the middle of the 20th century.
In the war of words that has followed
the bloodshed in Uri, the brutal oppression of protest in Kashmir has been
largely ignored. Indeed, the Indian state, aided by a near-militaristic TV news
media, has used the Uri attack and its aftermath to cover up a surge of
killings, maimings and blindings in one of the longest-running conflicts in the
world. This is the story of the bloody summer that Kashmiris have endured – and
of why they will not forget it.
On 8 July, a militant
rebel leader, Burhan Wani, was shot dead by Indian armed forces and
police in a remote Kashmir village. The killing sparked a series of spontaneous demonstrations
and protests, which, in a matter of days, turned into a
reinvigorated popular revolt against India’s dominion over this disputed state.
Wani’s path to militancy began in
another one of Kashmir’s bloody summers – back in 2010, when Indian security
forces killed 120 protesters. Wani, who was then 15 years old, is said to have
joined a small group of homegrown militants after he and his brother were
humiliated and abused by Indian soldiers. Over the next few years, he became
Kashmir’s most famous militant commander, and acquired something of a cult
following among young Kashmiris, who saw him as a symbol of resistance against
Indian occupation. Wani was a new breed of militant: unlike the first
generation of Kashmir separatist fighters in the early 1990s, he did not cross
over into Pakistan; he didn’t use a nom de guerre, and he amassed a huge
following on social media, where he issued brazen challenges to the Indian
state. It was therefore no surprise that thousands attended Wani’s funeral in
his hometown of Tral – or that those who could not get there organised their
own funeral services across the Kashmir valley.
As Kashmiris took to the streets,
police and paramilitaries were deployed in large numbers across the region.
Thousands of young protesters charged at the armed forces with stones and
slogans demanding freedom. Indian forces responded with lethal effect, firing
bullets, CS gas, and metal pellets into the crowds. In less than four days,
nearly 50 people were killed and thousands injured. More people took to the
streets to protest against these killings, and the Indian forces and Kashmiri
police killed and injured more of them. A cycle of protests connected to the
funerals of those protesters were, in turn, fired upon, resulting in yet more
killings and blindings. By the end of July, India was faced with a full-scale
popular revolt in Kashmir.
The most recent figures put the number
of dead at 94, including a young Kashmiri academic who was battered to
death by Indian soldiers, and an 11-year-old
boy, whose body, riddled with hundreds of pellets, was found on the
outskirts of Srinagar, the joint capital of Kashmir, in mid-September.
Shockingly, more than 500 people, most of them young, were shot in the face
with the pump-action “pellet guns” that the Indian forces routinely use to
suppress protests. These weapons discharge hundreds of small metal pellets, or
birdshot, capable of piercing the eye.
As the uprising continued, the armed
forces, by their own admission, fired nearly 4,000 cartridges at stone-throwing
demonstrators, crowds protesting against police brutality, and even onlookers.
This means that they sent, by one recent estimate, 1.3m metal balls hurtling
towards public gatherings predominantly made up of young unarmed people.
Children as young as four and five now
have multiple pellets in their retinas, blinding them partially, or fully, for
life. At the start of September, doctors at Kashmir’s main hospital reported
that on average, one person had their eyes ruptured by pellets every other hour
since 9 July. “It means 12 eye
surgeries per day,” one doctor told a local newspaper. “It is
shocking.”
On 12 July, the fourth day of the
protests, the state government, which is run by a controversial coalition
between Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and a local ally,
the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), finally issued its first official
statement on the use of the so-called “non-lethal” pellet guns. A
spokesperson for the government, representing the PDP, described its position
to the media: “We disapprove of it … But we will have to persist with this
necessary evil till we find a non-lethal alternative.”
There is no recorded instance of a
modern democracy systematically and willfully shooting at people to blind them
At first, the statement appeared as a
typical soundbite, the sort of thing that officials must compose and recite
with studied ambiguity for the press – the “government version”, as its known.
But I was struck by its cavalier defence of state violence and brutalisation.
It was obvious that this was not the spokesman’s personal view; it was a clear
articulation of the intent of the Indian state in Kashmir: we have no
choice but to shoot people in the eyes.
This was an unprecedented expression of
state violence. There is no other recorded instance of a modern democracy
systematically and wilfully shooting at people to blind them. At the end of
August, according to data obtained by one of India’s national newspapers,
nearly 6,000 civilians had been injured, and at least 972 of them
had suffered injuries to their eyes.
Advertisement
According to official records at SMHS,
the main hospital in Srinagar, 570 people sought treatment after their eyeballs
were ruptured by metal pellets. Ophthalmologists at the hospital performed more
surgeries in three days – from 10 to 12 July – than they had in the past three
years. Many of the wounded were protesters, but not all. Not one of them
deserved to be robbed of their sight.
By 14 August, as India prepared to
celebrate its Independence Day, Kashmir was under a near total blackout. I
briefly lost touch with my parents, as the state cut off all telephones and the
internet. I was reminded, once again, of the lines of the late
Kashmiri-American poet Agha Shahid Ali, which still echo 20 years after he
wrote them: “The city from where no news can come / is now so visible in its
curfewed night / that the worst is precise.” Just before the shutdown, I had
talked to my youngest sister over WhatsApp – she was a little girl in the 90s,
when Kashmir witnessed the first rebellion against Indian rule. “I’d never imagined
my [three-year-old] child would see everything that I saw as a child,” she told
me.
Rebellion against India’s rule over
Kashmir is neither new nor surprising – and the brutality of the state’s
response is equally familiar. In the 1990s, India came down hard on a
widespread uprising in the Kashmir valley – killing, torturing, disappearing,
and imprisoning thousands. Some estimates put the number of people killed since 1989 at
70,000. Some 8,000 non-combatants are thought to have been disappeared, and
6,000 are believed to have been buried in mass graves. Human rights reports
have identified thousands of cases of torture, including shocking techniques
such as “simulated drowning, striping flesh with razor blades and piping petrol
into anuses”. According to a 2012 report
in the Guardian, government documents revealed that one group of
security agents had “lopped off the limbs of suspects and fed prisoners with
their own flesh”.
In southern Kashmir, four girls, aged
between 13 and 18, were shot in their faces as recently as last week
Years later, very little has changed in
the Indian state’s response to the demand for self-determination from the
people of Kashmir. In a matter of four to five weeks this summer, Indian
troops, with a clear mandate to be unsparing, wounded over 10,000 people. One
of the youngest – five-year old Zohra – was admitted to a hospital in Srinagar
with lacerations
to her abdomen and legs. Fourteen-year-old Insha was in the family
kitchen when a swarm of
pellets pierced her face. She has lost vision in both eyes. In
southern Kashmir, four girls, aged between 13 and 18, were shot in their faces
last week. The prognosis for the youngest of these, 13-year-old
Ifra Jan, “is not good”, a doctor said. It is doubtful that these
little girls posed a threat to the military force – estimated at 700,000
soldiers and police – stationed in Kashmir.
As the showers of metal pellets were
unleashed upon protesters, bystanders and homebound schoolchildren, hospitals in
Kashmir began to resemble scenes from the great wars of the
20th century. Rows of beds with blindfolded boys and girls on them, parents
waiting anxiously, doctors and paramedics in attendance around the clock. On
occasion, police and spies also infiltrated the wards to compile profiles of
the injured, in order to place them under surveillance after their release. The
wounded were brought in by the dozen, like birds in the hunting season.
All of this was incomprehensible, even
to longtime observers of violence in Kashmir. One of the largest military
forces on the planet could not be waging a war against seeing. Perhaps
a few aberrations, a crowd-control tactic gone woefully wrong – one hoped so,
but the numbers kept piling up, eye after mutilated eye popping up on the
screens of phones and computers, as journalists began to publish their reports.
As none of the powerful men who run
Kashmir from Delhi expressed qualms about the blinding of children, it became
clear that in its hubris the Indian state had decided that snatching vision
from a few hundred young people was a fair price to pay for keeping Kashmir in
check. Perhaps itself blinded by a strain of arrogance peculiar to occupying
powers, it continued to pummel a subject population into submission.
The phrase
Raqs-e-Bismil, used in mystic Persian poetry to denote the passion
of the devoted, translates as the “dance of the wounded”. In the slaughterhouse
of the Kashmir valley, even the grievously injured – with pellet-scarred eyes
or broken limbs – have remained defiant. “We have even got some patients whose
guts are perforated and they are asking when they can go back and join the
protests,” one doctor
reported.
Advertisement
Two-and-a-half decades of rebellion in
Kashmir have hardened the indifference of India’s political and intellectual
classes to the human cost of the country’s repressive tactics in the valley.
Amid rising nationalist fervour, any sense of the basic rights of a suffering
population has been eroded or vanished entirely. The hostility now appears to
be total, unbridgeable, and for those on the receiving end, unbearable.
Powerful TV studios urge the state to be more aggressively macho, while
actively suppressing
or distorting news from Kashmir. One prominent newspaper ran an
online poll about the continued use of the pellets that had wounded and blinded
so many Kashmiris – a clear majority voted in support. Eminent columnists speak
calmly of the need for “harsh love” toward civilian protesters to rationalise the
state’s ruthless response. And the Twitter account for a government initiative,
Digital India, posted a poem calling
for the army to murder Kashmiris until they surrender.
As images from Kashmir began to circulate
on the internet – despite frequent attempts to block communications, including
at least one midnight raid on the offices of a local newspaper, and a blanket
ban on one English daily, the Kashmir Reader – pictures of the wounded emerged
by the dozen, many of them looking as though they had ruptured fruits where
their eyes should have been. On the second day of the protests, more than 50
people were admitted to the main hospital in Srinagar. Medics and parents were
desperate to save vision in at least one eye for those who had been shot,
attempting to extract the jagged and irregular pellets. “This only happens in a war-like
situation,” a surgeon sent from Delhi later said.
weapons is to aim at the legs to
disperse demonstrators. But it seems that the paramilitaries and the police
have been deliberately firing into faces. Some may only have minor wounds, some
will suffer limited loss of vision, some will lose one eye, some both, and some
will be impaired for life, but the pitiless assault on protesting adolescents
forces us to ask one question: is the Indian state happy to blind a generation?
It is inconceivable that policy
mandarins in Delhi or their advisers in Kashmir could be unaware of the
destructive power of “non-lethal weapons”. Earlier this year, the International
Network of Civil Liberties Organisations and Physicians for Human Rights
published a report titled “Lethal in
Disguise”. “Pellet rounds”, it stated, “cause an indiscriminate spray
of ammunition that spreads widely and cannot be aimed ...” They, therefore,
“are not only likely to be lethal at close range, but are likely to be
inaccurate and indiscriminate at longer ranges, even those recommended by
manufacturers for safety”.
Many countries have
banned police from using ammunition meant for hunting animals. The
multidirectional spray of pellets was designed to catch prey in flight. But
many countries have continued to use them as a means of force to control
civilian demonstrators.
Advertisement
In Israel, security forces often deploy
lethal and “non-lethal” ammunition against Palestinian protesters, and
crowd-control weapons have blinded at least five young Palestinians in the last
two years. The use of rubber bullets by police was banned in the
Spanish region of Catalonia in 2014, after at least seven
people were blinded by them on the streets of Barcelona.
In 2011, months after the uprising in
Tahrir Square that toppled an Egyptian dictator, a young police lieutenant,
Mohamed el-Shenawy, became infamous for firing pellets into the eyes of
protesters against Egypt’s military government. His exemplary skill at blinding
civilians earned him the nickname the “Eye Sniper”,
and his notoriety as a symbol of ongoing state brutality eventually led to a
three-year jail sentence.
Will India prosecute its own eye
snipers? Or outlaw the use of these weapons?
In the country’s present
hypernationalist mood, every kind of other is a suspicious figure, a ready-made
scapegoat for any failure that befalls the politicians determined to make India
great again: the secessionist Kashmiri, the impure Dalit, the traitorous
beef-eating Muslim, the woman who speaks her mind, the anti-national
journalist, the dissenting writer. Any voices who might call for a ban on these
“non-lethal” guns are certain to be ignored. To the contrary, ministers and
police, and their demagogues and cheerleaders, have continued to advocate the use
of both pellets and bullets against protesting crowds in Kashmir: unruly cattle
must be reined in at any cost.
Because Kashmiris have become
accustomed to the violence inflicted on them – as they are to the indifference
of the world – when pellets were first sprayed at protesters in the heated
summer of 2010, most people processed this as nothing more than a new
misfortune; just another element of the war in Kashmir. If one were to draw a
diagram of the assaults inflicted on Kashmiri bodies over the decades, hardly a
single part would remain unmarked: in the 1990s, when the violence was at its
worst, the eyes were spared; now they seem to have become a favourite target. The
victims of such tactics, consciously and not, cultivate reserves of tolerance
for pain, but also a capacity to remember.
I remember, too. I grew up amid the
darkness of the late 80s and early 90s. I remember that most of us teenagers
innately understood that being abused, slapped, or beaten with batons and rifle
butts by an Indian trooper was a bit of a joke when compared to the horrors
that others endured in the dungeons of Kashmir. (One of the most notorious
torture centres, Papa II – a colonial-era building on the banks of Dal Lake in
Srinagar – was refurbished and redecorated, and served as the stately residence
of the late pro-India politician Mufti Mohammad Sayeed. His daughter, as the
current chief minister, now presides over the brutalisation of another
generation of Kashmiri youth.)
I remember that the war in those years
taught us to treat corpses and shrouds as reminders of passing time, which was
measured for the young in massacres and assassinations. I recall, too, the
tragic rupture in the Kashmiri body politic when an atmosphere of fear and
loathing forced out the Kashmiri Pandits – a Hindu minority that had cohabited
with Muslim Kashmiris for centuries – in an almost overnight exodus, many
of them targeted and killed by separatist militants. Sanjay Tickoo, who runs an
organisation for the welfare of Kashmiri Hindus, says: “Over the past 20 years,
we estimate that 650 Pandits
were killed in the valley.” I don’t know what happened to Sunil
and Rajesh, my childhood mates from the primary school we all attended near an
idyllic river bend in Verinag in south Kashmir.
Advertisement
Growing up, I experienced a brutal,
bleak time, as India’s response to the uprising included the grotesque policy
of “catch and kill”, under which combatants and non-combatants alike were
dispatched in summary executions or tortured to death. And yet, I don’t
remember such a vengeful assault on ordinary people as we are seeing now.
Buoyed by a belligerent nationalist at the helm in Delhi, the security forces
on the ground perhaps feel emboldened to unleash a more widespread cruelty.
In 2013, an affecting photo essay by
journalist Zahid Rafiq in the New York Times documented a few of the stories of
those who had been blinded by pellets. It remains a grim testament to the
darkness in Kashmir – even though the blindings at that time,
amid hundreds dead, did not attract too much notice. At the time, hardly any
Indian civil society group or human rights organisation thought fit to speak up
about such a wicked crime. The wanton demonisation of the Kashmiri Muslim, a
project that some media organisations in India take particular pleasure in, was
perhaps fully realised even then. It certainly is now, when thousands, fed
on a daily diet of nationalist fury, take to social media to celebrate the
killing, maiming, and blinding of young Kashmiris.
That the government in
Kashmir – a collection of local elites comprising career
politicians, technocrats, and chancers loyal to India – considers pellet guns a
“necessary evil”, might make us feel grateful. At least they acknowledge the
“evil” part – perhaps to address their own guilty consciences.
A few days into this summer’s uprising, the
Kashmir Observer, a local English-language daily, reported that the local
government had deployed a fleet of brand new ambulances to securely ferry
visiting VIPs to picnic spots in the valley. This was while
protesters were being killed, maimed and blinded – and while the ambulances
carrying them to hospitals were coming under fire from security forces.
An ophthalmologist at the main hospital
in Kashmir told the Indian Express in July: “For the first time the foreign
bodies are irregular edged, which causes more damage once it strikes
the eye.” Irregular, sharp edges? I had assumed that the pellets fired at
protesters – like rubber or plastic bullets, were round discoid things. It
turns out that there exist different kinds of pellets, and in 2016, some Indian
forces are using the jagged variety – which inflict greater damage to flesh and
eyes alike, and which doctors say is far more difficult to remove.
Advertisement
How did India get here? How is it all
right for a constitutionally democratic and secular, modern nation to blind
scores of civilians in a region it controls? Not an authoritarian state, not a
crackpot dictatorship, not a rogue nation or warlord outside of legal and
ethical commitments to international statutes, but a democratic country, a
member of the comity of nations. How are India’s leaders, thinkers and its
thundering televised custodians of public and private morality, all untroubled
by the sight of a child whose heart has
been penetrated by metal pellets? This is the kind of cruelty we
expect from Assad’s Syria, not the world’s largest democracy.
Historically, such an inhuman response
to an uprising – to mass dissent – has been the province of empires and
tyrants. A modern democratic nation rarely unleashes such violence, except upon
victims whom it does not regard as its own people. It is quite clear that for
India and its rulers, Kashmiris have been subjects and not citizens for as long
as Kashmiris have refused Indian rule. You do not shower projectiles that
target eyes and viscera on a people you consider your own. In snatching away
the vision of Kashmiri children, the Indian state has decisively announced that
it has only one message: you must be servile and submissive, and if you
refuse, we will unleash our fury.
With a hubris derived from its might
and military dominion over Kashmir, the state convinces itself that it has the
power to inflict blindness. In no time, then, it blinds itself too – to the character of
democracy that is its central founding principle. The harsh
repression of Kashmiri protests, the Nobel prize-winning Indian economist
Amartya Sen declared in July, is “the biggest blot
on India’s democracy”.
It is hard not to see this mood of brutality
connected, at the very least in its tenor, to the larger register of extreme
violence, by both state and non-state actors, that has come to be normalised
over the last couple of decades.
There has been some dissent in India.
Journalists, activists, even some
politicians, have written elegiac columns and
essays on the savage response to the rebellion in Kashmir. They
have implored their government to cease the brutality, to be kind, and to talk to Kashmiris.
But it appears that the Indian government, clouded by a newfound chauvinism and
a hunger for votes, is in no mood to listen to the nation’s voices of sanity.
In August, only a few days after Indian forces in Srinagar murdered a 21-year-old
cash-machine watchman by firing 300 pellets into his body from
close range, the Indian prime minister used a speech on
Kashmir to taunt Pakistan over its own atrocities against
separatists in the province of Balochistan, where the Pakistani army has
inflicted forced disappearances and summary executions on the Baloch people.
“Pakistan forgets that it bombs its own citizens using fighter planes,” he
said. But Modi chose to forget that his own forces had, by then, killed scores
of young Kashmiris.
we need to interrogate
the circumstances that have led to the deliberate blinding of hundreds of young
people at the hands of armed forces in Kashmir, before this too is forgotten.
As some of the wounded have begun to heal, some accounts have suggested that
the damage may have been less severe than initially feared – that perhaps many
of those who underwent eye surgery will regain “some vision” in at least one
eye. This might make one feel better – relieved that its not worse
– but there is something wrong with that kind of moral reckoning, akin to the
Indian security officials who continue to maintain that pellet guns must be
used because the alternative would be worse. One security official told an
Indian news website that pellet guns had actually “saved lives”:
“It is unfortunate that there have been eye injuries but the pellets are less
lethal than getting hit by bullets.”
Advertisement
So we might ask: what if the armed
forces stationed in Kashmir had fired live bullets instead? Imagine the
death toll! But this doesn’t compute: in 2016, the security forces
have already killed nearly 100 civilians. Is that an acceptable number?
In a year or two, as India, and
Pakistan, continue to harp on their territorialist positions, there will arrive
a season of surface calm – a “return to normalcy” – in Kashmir. People will
shop, marry off their children, and celebrate an uncurfewed Eid. They will also
welcome tourists in their blighted land.
But when this new generation of
freedom-seekers grows up into blinded, maimed, adulthood, they will carry our
guilt-ridden consciences for us. They will remember more than they have seen.
They will certainly remember the country that did this to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment