Is the Government to Blame for the Current Crisis in Kashmir?

Today's editorial in The Hindu on the Kashmir issue revealed more by what it did not say than what it did. There has been plenty of criticism of the UPA government over its handling of the recent Kashmir crisis. To be sure, the Ministry of Home Affairs does not inspire a lot of confidence but then, Kashmir is different because it has been a problem for every government, not just this one. Here are some excerpts:

New Delhi and Srinagar failed to act when Islamists first started a campaign claiming the diversion of land to the Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board was a conspiracy to change Kashmir’s demography. Panicking when the protests snowballed in Kashmir, the State government revoked the order — sparking off a communally charged backlash in Jammu. Subsequently, the State and Central governments failed to assuage fears that Kashmir was facing an existence-threatening blockade, thus fuelling support for an attempted march across the Line of Control. Force had to be used to stop the marchers, sparking off another round of violence. At this point, the State government simply collapsed, ceding power to Islamists in Kashmir and Hindutva groups in Jammu.

Put simply, New Delhi allowed matters to drift to a point where it was left with no resources other than coercive tools.

All right, things went wrong but what could have been done different? No one could have predicted that transferring land to the Shrine Board would set off a riot. Once it did, would The Hindu have been happy if the government had refused to revoke the order and allowed things to inflame further in Kashmir? Very likely not. Yes, it sparked off angry riots in Jammu but then what would have been the paper's answer to this event? The government did point out on several occasions that traffic was plying normally on the Srinagar-Jammu highway but everyone knows that reality can get easily obscured particularly when the truth comes from the mouth of an unpopular, nay detested government. The separatist leadership of course has obviously nothing to gain by calming people by letting them know how things really stand.

Praveen Swami points out in his thoughtful op-ed today previous incidents that sparked riots - the loss of the so-called Prophet's hair at the Hazratbal shrine in 1963 and the discovery of a supposedly blasphemous picture from a colonial-era encyclopedia in 1973. As he points out, there is a common thread running through all of these - a mob incited unexpectedly by an irrational fear of a seemingly innocuous fact. What then is any government to do in dealing with a paranoid and xenophobic people led by opportunistic leaders feeding their existing insecurity with a constant stream of inflammatory rhetoric based on false claims and twisted facts?

Criticism of the government's inability to resolve the crisis is all very well but unless the paper can offer a different approach or solutions, its attack amounts to little more than a rhetorical exercise of one-upmanship. The paper should follow the example of the New York Times Editorial Board which never publishes an opinion critical of anyone on any contemporary issue without having a real alternative - right or wrong - to offer.

Praveen Swami's articles suffer from the same infirmity. The analysis is excellent but he too fails to say what if any are the choices before the government and what can be done to defuse the situation without having to resort to repressive measures indefinitely.