Would there ever be a moment when India would also speak for, not of, Kashmir? The suddenly manufactured national outrage with media teams descending on the Valley and encouraging students to further harden their position with the nationalistic versus anti-national discourse is missing when the victims are Kashmiri youth, who for years have been beaten in and outside campuses, in the Valley or outside. The hypocrisy reveals the colored and communal lens with which educational campuses and its inmates are viewed with, further exacerbating divisive and communal politics
ANURADHA BHASIN JAMWAL
[dropcap]B[/dropcap]efore the celluloid star Amitabh Bachchan sung the national anthem reportedly free of cost at the start of the marquee India-Pakistan World Twenty20 cricket match at the Eden Gardens (landing himself in the controversy of singing it all wrong), he was paid Rs 4 crores for singing it during Pro Kabaddi League 2015.
There should, of course, be nothing wrong if a showman sings anything for money. That is his job. The trouble is when he begins sermonizing about the spiritual upliftment that the national anthem gives him. “There is something about this song this anthem this composition, that brings the hair on end and leaves you with the power of national pride and place,” he tweeted.
That one should be paid for inculcating national pride and love for the nation may or may not be excusable. But when a man who professes such patriotism with his rendition of the national anthem (even if flawed) and talks about the immense pride it brings is included in the list of 500 Indians figuring in the leaked secret files of Mossack Fonseca, a law firm headquartered in tax haven Panama, known for its factory-like production of offshore companies for its worldwide clientele of the affluent. His denial cannot be treated as a gospel truth and his name cannot be cleared till investigations prove it otherwise.
Can ultra-nationalist symbols be used to justify tax evasions and any other illegal and wrong actions? The latest discourse in political circles strangely treats these symbols as a cover of impunity which is miscalculated, erroneous and sets a dangerous precedent. The most brazen form of using such symbols as a cover comes from the most surprising quarters in response to the NIT crisis in Srinagar.
It is a matter of concern when socialists and democrats like Nitish Kumar borrow the ultra-nationalist rhetoric to take a dig at a government that is already endorsing, in all its juvenility, a symbolic sense of national pride rather than talk about strengthening individual character to build up national character. Whether it was out of sarcasm or lack of understanding, the remark that the BJP government at the Centre is now beating students for carrying the national tricolour is a mis-reading of the controversy, distortion of facts and twisting the logic of law of the land.
The facts emerging about the crisis are still not adequately known and too filtered to indict anybody at the moment but one can safely hazard hypothetical guesses. Police action on the NIT campus can be described as brutal (even though in the Valley where brutal is really gruesome, mild police action has a definition that is different from elsewhere in the country) and their presence on campus itself is questionable.
That the police brutality on the campus needs to be opposed, there is no doubt about that. However, the grounds being offered for opposing that brutality are not only misplaced and flawed but also set a dangerous precedent, more so in a state that is reeling under a conflict and is extremely sensitive.
Such brutal action, whatever the genesis of the violence even if there was cause for provocation, is uncalled for, especially on campuses of educational institutions, whose autonomy must be respected. But viewing the incident from the perspective of nationalism versus anti-national is extremely flawed. Let’s get it straight: the action of the police, guilty as it may be of disregarding standard operative procedures in dealing with mobs, is not dictated by notions of nationalism or anti-nationalism in dealing with mobs but by the demands of law and order situation.
It is as yet not clear whether the non-Kashmiri students of NIT provoked the police action or police failed to maintain utmost restraint. An answer to that would require a deeper probe, a step that is imperative for resolving the crisis. That should be the sole concern.
The argument that since the students were holding a flag and raising a nationalistic slogan, they should have been left untouched is not only a non-issue; it has no legal sanctity. Waving of a tricolor does not permit a license for hooliganism, if there was any on part of the students. That the police brutality on the campus needs to be opposed, there is no doubt about that. However, the grounds being offered for opposing that brutality are not only misplaced and flawed but also set a dangerous precedent, more so in a state that is reeling under a conflict and is extremely sensitive.
The police in Kashmir are already notorious for brutality, for unjustified killings and cases of torture. Many personnel stand accused of human rights abuse and there is much dragging of feet even in registering the cases, leave alone lop-sided and prolonged trials. The Kashmiris, particularly youth have had to bear the brunt of this brutality. Added to the brutality within Kashmir, the tag of ‘terrorism’ that popular perception in India often attaches to Kashmiris makes them a victim outside the state as well.
However, this victimhood does not inspire any concern because it does not come cloaked in a tricolor or deafened by a ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ chorus. An RSS ideologue, Prof Rakesh Sinha, on a television channel debate, sought to celebrate the moment of ‘national pride’ on NIT campus. ‘Today India is speaking in Kashmir’, he said while referring to the NIT students carrying the tricolor.
Would there ever be a moment when India would also speak for, not of, Kashmir? The suddenly manufactured national outrage with media teams descending on the Valley and encouraging students to further harden their position with the nationalistic versus anti-national discourse is missing when the victims are Kashmiri youth, who for years have been beaten in and outside campuses, in the Valley or outside.
There is no cloak of ultra-nationalism that Kashmiris have the privilege of wearing. The hypocrisy reveals the colored and communal lens with which educational campuses and its inmates are viewed with, further exacerbating divisive and communal politics. There will after all be a certain community seen as a natural heir of this sense of nationalism. The Kashmiri Muslims find a place at the bottom of the hierarchy including its police personnel.
The issue is not the flag; it is the identity. The flag is simply being used as a prop to further the divisive and communal agenda. In pursuit of this pernicious agenda and ultra-nationalism, the very national symbols about which there is an engineered pretene of worshiping and treating them as sacred are being denigrated and demeaned like never before.
