Minorities in J&K Evolve a 'Doctrine of Survival'
by Dr. Ajay Chrungoo
SECESSIONISM IN BORDER STATES
The secessionist movements have been
the characteristic of only the border
states in India. And without
exception such states either have a non-Hindu
population as the majority
social group or the dominant Hindu identity has
suffered a crippling erosion
over the years. The importance of the absence
of secessionist tendencies in
the main heartland in maintaining the Unity of
India cannot be overemphasised.
The political culture as has evolved in the
mainland India has in many ways
than one contributed to the growth of
secessionism in the border
states as also the marginalisation and exclusion
of Hindu minority groups living
there.
While as the growth of
separatism in North-Eastern states can be mainly
attributed to socio-economic
reasons as will as concerted campaigns to bring
about dilution and cultural
alienation of Hindu social groups, same does not
hold true for the growth of
secessionism in the northern border states of
Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir.
The patronisation and legitimisation by the
Indian State and the mainstream
political establishment of the
religious-subnationalism in
these two states has created a situation where
secessionist politics has
assumed international ramifications and an intense
war from within.
CLEANSING OPERATIONS IN J&K
The dimensions of this internal war
have frightening proportions
particularly in the State of
Jammu and Kashmir. Hindu minority in this
border state has borne the main
brunt of this war. Suffering a systematic
process of ruthless
marginalisation and exclusion since independence, the
Hindus in the Jammu and Kashmir
State are now face to face with an
attrition of genocidal
proportions. Terrorist operatives in this state,
unlike Punjab, are of the nature
of a demographic assault. Indian State as
well as political mainstream
have yet to acknowledge this stark reality.
Kashmir valley has already been
cleansed of its Hindu population. Continuing
massacres of the Hindus in Jammu
province are neither a diversionary tactic
employed by the terrorists nor a
sign of their desperation under the
supposed pressure mounted by the
security forces. They have a very clear cut
objective of bringing about a
blatant demographic change not just in some
parts, but in the entire Jammu
region.
‘Cleansing operations’ in the
form of selective or mass killings of Hindus
form only the obvious component
of the demographic assault in the state. The
less talked about, but not so
hidden, components are engineered purchase of
land and properties in targeted
areas of Jammu region, fraudulent and
illegal grab of Hindu properties
and most significantly the demographic
invasion, of Jammu city.
Creating a ‘New Jammu City’ with a transformed
demographic profile, relegating
the existing city to the backyards, is no
longer being talked in hushed
tones.
These demographic campaigns
besides being crucial to the Islamisation of the
state to facilitate extension of
Muslim power further towards east have also
immediate implications. Such
machinations narrow down the social support
base for India in the state,
thus critically impairing the leverage of the
Nation in any negotiated
settlement in the light of mounting international
pressures to settle the Kashmir
issue. Efforts of the entire nation to
stand up to concerted
international pressures on the Kashmir issue stand
nullified in the long run if the
demographic character of the state is
allowed to be transformed at a
pace at which it is happening in the present
time.
Dispersal of displaced Kashmiri
Pandits from Jammu to other parts of the
country, regular internal
displacement of Hindus from the vulnerable border
areas of Jammu province to
smaller towns as well as the main Jammu city
should ring the alarm bills loud
enough for evolving a more comprehensive
thinking on the issue. Strategic
thinking should take a serious notice of
the fact that even though Indian
security prowess may be able to enforce a
status quo on the borders but as
a result of this blatant change of
demographic profile of the state
the borders of the nation are very
in-conspicuously receding back.
RESPONSE OF INDIAN STATE
The response of the Indian State to
this serious development since 1989 can
be at the most termed as an
approach of mere ‘physical retention’ of Hindus.
The main features of this policy
of retention are that:
i) it seeks to
maintain pluralism in the state only in symbolic terms.
Attempts at the phased return of
the displaced Hindus is a classical example
of this symbolism.
ii) it ignores the reality
that Hindus in the state in general, and in
vulnerable pockets were they are
having not a significant presence in
particular, are the basic
targets of destabilisation.
iii) attacks on Hindus in the
state continue to be visualised in terms of
attempts to vitiate communal
atmosphere in the mainland rather than in terms
of effecting a demographic
transformation of that particular area and
pushing back the civilisational
frontiers of the nation.
iv) it seeks to discourage
fresh displacement only through administrative in the form of
presenting a fiat accompli to the victims that
displacement may bring a worse
situation of economic ruin and wilderness.
The victim is presented a choice
between devil and the deep sea.
It is no exaggeration that Hindus in
Jammu and Kashmir constitute the
dominant component of the social
resistance against the separatist politics
in the state. The feeling that
is gaining ground amongst them is that while
they constitute the main target
of destabilisation for Islamic
fundamentalism as well as larger
international intrigue, they are yet only a
peripheral concern for the
Indian State and the mainstream political
thinking. The feeling is
critically undermining the morale of their
resistance against the
separatism and fundamentalism.
SURVIVAL DOCTRINE
It is time that problems of
minorities in the State of the J&K are addressed
not in piecemeals and puny
political posturings. Indian State can no longer
afford to shy away from evolving
a comprehensive ‘Doctrine of Survival’ for
minorities in the Jammu and
Kashmir State. Any delay in its formulation may
only imperil the minorities with
serious implications for overall security
integrity and stability of the
already weakened northern frontiers of the
Indian nation.
This security Doctrine should
form one of the main components of India’s
Kashmir policy and should be
based on the specific threats to the minorities
in the regions of the state they
inhabit. It also should take into account
the role of political elites in
the state towards the survival and
development of the minorities.
The main presumptions for this security
doctrine have to be as:
a) No protection measure for
the minorities under assault in the state can
be evolved unless Government of
India takes into account its genocidal
contours. Hindus in the state
are under attack as a society and not as
individuals.
b) The surer immunity
against terrorist campaigns is building the physical
resistance as well as deterrence,
which means therapeutic arming of Hindus.
For this nation needs to rise
above the limitations which the existing
secular idiom imposes on the
policy makers. Taking nation into confidence
about the contours and magnitude
of the threat to the very existence of
Hindus becomes imperative. The
larger Muslim minority in country has to be
particularly educated about the
nature of crisis and precarious position of
the Hindus in the state.
c) The return and
rehabilitation of the internally displaced groups in the
state is to be visualised not in
terms of physical return to the lost
territory. The displaced
groups’ return essentially means return to the
society and economic
organisation of the lost territory and hence demands
addressing of the issues of
communalisation and fundamentalisation of the
society.
d) The security doctrine
has necessarily to relate itself to the proper
political empowerment of Hindus
and evolving an approach which undermines
the politics of religious subnationalism.
v) The growing feeling
amongst Hindus of the state of being disowned by the
nation has to be properly adressed as the feeling can breed either surrender
or alienation.
The father of the nation had opined
helplessly in 1934 that a Hindu prince
can only rule in a Muslim
majority Kashmir by abdicating the responsibility
to rule. But that was before
independence during the autocratic rule. The
independent democratic Indian
Nation over the years has shown the same
inclination of conveniently
abdicating the responsibility and choosing only
soft options. Such approach can
no longer be tenable. What is at stake now
is very existence of the
minorities in the state.
Source: Kashmir
Sentinel
| 
