Who Owns Kashmir?

Rahul Gandhi, like the rest of the Nehru-Gandhi clan before him, will never contest an election from Kashmir. When he says, “I myself am from Kashmiri family and want to have lifelong relations with the people of Jammu and Kashmir”, it is a declaration of the divine right of the potentate in a jigsaw puzzle of a state.

A delegation of panchayat leaders from the state visits him in Delhi; he lands up in Sonmarg and tells the people he wants to “understand your pain deeply”. This makes former chief minister Farooq Abdullah so emotional he blurts out, “We are Indians and we will die as Indians. No power can separate us from India. A day will come when children of Rahul and Omar will see fruits of steps taken by us.” In July, Hurriyat leaders met Pakistan’s foreign minister on her official trip to India.

So, who is ruling the state?

Rahul Gandhi organises a corporate picnic with big industrialists. Many promises will be made. Perhaps for more formula racing, tulip gardens, skiing facilities, to ensure tourist traffic. These are mirages used to market the state to others. He wants to “connect Kashmiri youth with the development process”. There is no introspection as to why that has not happened yet.

>>Read the rest in Express Tribune

Right said Omar?

Omar Abdullah is trapped between the BJP and the Hurriyat. At any other time it would have been a wonderful place to be in, berated by two extremist groups. Unfortunately for him, their reasons for putting him on the mat are vastly different.

The chief minister has been quoted from Twitter as saying:

"If the J&K assembly had passed a resolution similar to the one in Tamil Nadu on Afzal Guru would the reaction have been as muted? I think not."

The death penalty for Rajiv Gandhi's killers has been delayed by state intervention. This is unusual.

Omar is right in that there are different standards. Interestingly, the muted reaction he was complaining about has agitated people and 'unmuted' them. The BJP is going hoarse with sudden concern for Rajiv Gandhi. (They are quiet over the acquittal of Haren Pandya's killers. Pandya was a BJP man who later had a fallout with Modi.)

The BJP uses the phrase "sovereignty of the nation" rather loosely. Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, unfortunate as it was, had its own dynamics that had to do with policy. The LTTE is not an Indian organisation, although it has its supporters. Such support results in huge electoral gains.

The BJP is worried about this aspect. After all, Priyanka Gandhi had met Nalini, one of her father's killers, in Vellore jail in 2008. The death verdict was given 11 years ago. Why did the BJP not put pressure to expedite it as they have done on a regular basis in the case of Afzal Guru, an Indian?

Omar Abdullah was pointing out the double standards, and one should see this as part of a thriving democracy that we are so chuffed about, with people out in the street.

However, the Hurriyat's Mirwaiz Omar Farooq has wondered why if he is so concerned about Afzal does he not resign. Again, we are faced with a missing the wood for the trees situation.

Omar Abdullah was in fact speaking as a political leader and expressing the helpless predicament of dealing with Kashmir. He chose the wrong forum to do so.

A few 'other' questions too need to be asked:

1. Would he raise the issue in the J&K assembly?

2. If so, would it mean he is doing so on humanitarian grounds or on a legal/factual basis?

3. If the latter, then would he risk providing possible loopholes?

4. How often do fake encounters figure in the assembly?

5. Does exposing political hypocrisy - I am assuming the muted reference was to politicians - enough?

This is a question for all parties. We do live in times when terrorists too have a vote bank, that is those who are not behind establishment-buffered terror.

Answers need to be sought in the right place, unless the 'people's movement' has seeped into the system's bones. In that case, stone pelters should be excused.

The Hina Factor: Pakistan’s Wicked Ploy

Oops, you did it again! Krishna and Khar

This is Asif Ali Zardari’s shrewdest move. Sending Hina Rabbani Khar on what amounts to be the equivalent of cricket diplomacy. This is not meant to be a sexist comment. She pretty much sailed through the India test by fire even as Pakistani intellectuals and the media have been rubbishing her ever since she was appointed to the post.


What are the dynamics here? It seems impossible to disregard the references to what she wore, how she looked and spoke, and it is a tad stupid for well-traveled Indians to comment on her designer labels as though they are not exposed to these. If anything, they look a bit awestruck even as they seemingly reduce her to superficials. The Times of India decided to tread carefully and mentioned our foreign Minister S.M.Krishna’s necktie, as though it were mandatory to give him equal sartorial time.


Zardari’s victory is that he knew the attention would be diverted from important issues although he had said that giving a 34-year-old with little experience the plum assignment was “a demonstration of the government's commitment to bring women into the mainstream of national life". There is no contradiction in his mind that the mainstream is the elite. He is sending out a few messages here: our societies are obsessed with the façade of economic progress, so let us dress the part even if we are dependent on foreign aid. A report had said that Richard Holbrooke was keen that she was given more responsibility. As foreign affairs minister she does not need to know what happens in the bastis. Does Rehman Malik, the Interior Minister, know? She has to convey Pakistan’s intentions, which is an easy job to do because India already knows it. As she said in a television interview, when questioned about her meeting with the Hurriyat leaders before her official itinerary, that this was the “stated position of Pakistan”.


Rather smartly, she also took the age issue head-on and said it was a matter of how one sees it. She has been an elected MP and served two terms as junior minister that helped her “learn on the job”. This sounds like a simple statement. Think about it, though. The head of our government is not elected; the woman running this country has no experience; the youth leader has been learning on the job for years now with the added advantage of dynasty. If we decide to look into our own backyard, Ms. Khar’s debut would appear like quite a masterstroke.


So, what is it about her that has riled Pakistanis? A former envoy, Zafar Hilaly, had been dismissive: "Asif Ali Zardari clearly does not want a heavyweight in the job. Hina will play the role and say her piece; but I don't think anyone is expecting anything significant from her."


He should know that no minister can do anything significant with India. We have been playing a carrot-and-stick game for years and will continue to do so. All paperwork, statements and dossiers will be cosmetic offers.


There are derisive put-downs that she is just a rich spoilt woman from a feudal family. This comes from the media; most of the owners and editors are rather well-off and have other businesses and most certainly give the time of day to social butterflies. In fact, some noted writers have made a career of carousing for the Chanel chicks. They seem to have forgotten that none of their prominent leaders has been a grassroots person. Zardari is himself a greenhorn with a shady history. What about Benazir Bhutto? What was her experience except to belong to a political family? Jemima Khan had dismissed her  as "The Kleptocrat in an Hermes scarf" (my rejoinder was here), completely forgetting her own posh Goldsmith girl days. What is Imran Khan’s experience that some people think he’d, be a great prime minister? One will not question the political experience of military leaders because they rule either by coup or from the coop.


Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy added some perspective but a bit harshly: “In a male dominated culture, she will be derided as no more than a pretty face. This would be true even if she was hard-as-nails and an exemplary negotiator. She will also be the object of jealousy within the PPP, where sycophants know that the boss decides and suck up to him. How forcefully Khar is able to present Pakistan's position as foreign minister remains to be seen. Although she was selected for her docility rather than bold originality, there could always be surprises."


How many Pakistanis, forget politicians, have expressed a position that is boldly original on matters of foreign policy? Any national psyche makes it incumbent for people to believe in certain aspects; much of it is inherited baggage. If she is to push Pakistan’s position, that too with regard to India, how can she be original?


Before her visit, a report had quoted an unnamed observer who said, “It is well-known that Pakistan's foreign policy is in the hands of agencies, not the foreign minister or even the President. Hina will have a tough time proving that she is not just a puppet. I don't think anyone is going to forget that her roots go back to the Musharraf administration."


This goes in her favour. Pervez Musharraf conducted the biggest PR exercise in India during the Agra Summit although it ended rather badly. He became a martyred hero, so the connection is her silent trump card. Again Zardari, who it is suspected could get close to Musharraf again in one of those opportunistic alliances that his father-in-law was so adept at, has played his cards well.


And for those who are talking about maintaining the status quo, that is what Indo-Pak relations are about. That or months of sulking. The outcome is, as expected, simplistic. India and Pakistan have agreed “on the need to strengthen cooperation on counter-terrorism including among relevant departments as well as agencies to bring those responsible for terror crimes to justice”. This is worth a yawn although it gives sufficient grist for several yarns.


The confidence building measures (CBMs) will be another Samjhauta – compromise. You take some missiles out of the way, but that does not prevent the threat perception and the real threat. It is not about whether either country decides to attack, but how much it feels the need to defend itself. This is never overtly at the government level. We have coined the phrase “non-state actors” just to make sure that foreign ministers can “agree” without having a clue as to what is happening behind their backs. The intelligence agencies have to deal with the headache, unless they are the headache.


The Line of Control will now be accessible for travel and trade. Is this a big leap forward when the economies of both sides of Kashmir are not really bullish? As regards travel, residents of Kashmir are anyway given visas more easily.


In general terms, trade opening acts as one more people-to-people initiative.


By far her entertaining the Hurriyat leaders at the Pakistani High Commission before meeting our foreign minister  - while deemed undiplomatic and a kick to protocol - was her real moment. Tutored she was, but she made it seem like the most natural thing to do. India and Pakistan are just two nations. Emphasise Kashmir and you sit on the TNT bomb. To keep it simmering has proved to be the most lucrative aspect of Indo-Pak politics. CBMs are just loose change.


- - -


Also published in Countercurrents

Surely They’re Joking, Mr. Fai! Kashmir’s American Counsel?

At the Kashmir border

Surely They’re Joking, Mr. Fai! 
Kashmir’s American Counsel? 
by Farzana Versey
Counterpunch, July 22-24

The fact that there is an element of surprise over Ghulam Nabi Fai’s arrest after the FBI exposed his connections to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) reveals that this was probably a sudden brainwave.

The allegation is that Mr. Fai’s Kashmir American Council (KAC) was illegally funded by the ISI to exert influence on the US Congress to swing the Kashmir debate in Pakistan’s favour.

Did the ISI do it? Possible. Did Mr. Fai use this money? Possible. Was the FBI unaware about it all these years? Not possible.

There are a few important aspects to this development:

1.       The FBI keeps track of all funds, so why was it quiet all along? KAC is not an underground movement. It puts up petitions; it has a Google groups forum; there is a Facebook page of its affiliates; its conferences are held in university halls and invitation is free. Often dinner is served.

The huge amount of money discovered should prompt the FBI to question the recipients and investigate as to how it has impacted on US policy. Instead, the focus is almost entirely on the Fai-ISI link. Is it possible to forget that the ISI virtually runs Pakistan and that Pakistan is also the beneficiary of American funds? Ergo, the ISI is by default propped up by the US financially and, given the strategic political dynamics, on the ground too. The ISI is nobody’s fool to depend on a Kashmiri organisation in the US to lobby for Pakistan’s interests in the Valley when it already has its people in the region with help from the Lashkar-e-Taiyba and other forces, including a faction of the local Hurriyat Conference.

This is not a simple case of getting the bad guy. It is about creating one more bad guy, and this is notwithstanding Fai’s role in the larger Kashmir issue and sponsorship.

2.       Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has just visited India and set the tone for Indo-US relations. However, the dog-and-bone attitude continues with an emphasis on American interest and interests in Pakistan. There is most definitely an attempt to influence the talks between the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan scheduled for July 27.

3.       The proposed US move out of Afghanistan would necessitate having some presence in the region. In fact, after the Clinton meeting, India’s Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna said, “We have impressed on the United States and other countries who have a major presence in Afghanistan that it is necessary for them to continue in Afghanistan.”

Pakistan is handy for some sado-masochism. Recently, there were video clips in the media of the Taliban killing Pakistani soldiers, in a reversed version of Gitmo.

4.        Osama Bin Laden’s killing is being regurgitated on a tangential topic by implying yet again that Pakistani intelligence agencies knew about his abode. There have been arrests that seem suspiciously like red herrings.

5.       David Headley is deposing before the courts in the US and providing details of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Headley’s departure from the US to India is a major goof-up by security forces in that country as well as the Indian embassy. His implicating the ISI would surprise no one except the US in its studied ‘naïve’ state. It is pertinent that Ms. Clinton mentioned these attacks (with only a cursory sympathetic reference to the recent Mumbai attacks only days before she arrived). This is much like Headley who wanted to fight for Kashmir, but ended up taking pictures of Mumbai’s landmarks to help his ‘handlers’.

6.       One is aware of the ISI’s crucial strategic role in Pakistan. But, how does the FBI function in the US? Does it push the agenda of the party in power? If so, then its bolt from the blue could be another means to assist the current government in the coming elections.

The major beneficiary of Mr. Fai’s political contributions seems to be Republican Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana. This has been going on for 15 years. For 15 years the FBI has managed to trace the $23,500 contribution to US lawmakers that is legally available with the Federal Election Commission. What made the FBI now want to dig into the over $ 4 million that was illegally brought in?

If indeed it is true, then the onus ought to be on the security agencies and those who were expected to lobby for the Kashmir cause.  There are murmurs that Fai is only a front. This is a convenient ruse. You have some evidence, claim other evidence, arrest the man based on these and then leave a small opening for the bigger fish, well aware that the bigger fish are not born that way but plumped up artificially in diplomatic laboratories.

* * *

It is time to ask how exactly lobbying works and whether the United States can take an ethical stand when it is open to such influencing.

The political action committee (PAC) is a blatant forum to ensure that groups can help political candidates and parties, which in turn promise to assist them. Contributors range from real estate agencies, insurance companies, defense contractors and oil companies. There are also special interest groups based on race, gender, nationality, and religion too. In less developed societies this might be deemed as bribery. Legalising it makes the process transparent only to a small extent. If KAC has really managed to get in the millions of dollars illegally, then it suggests that there are loopholes in the system.

Fai in a soup

However, does this ensure that the lobbying group will truly benefit? Mr. Fai was a US citizen; he organised conferences as many do. There was one held on February 2011 and the list of speakers included Chairman of the Hurriyat Conference Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Norwegian Member of Parliament Peter S. Gitmark, author and South Asia Analyst Victoria Schofield, Pakistani envoy Husain Haqqani. The others listed as “invited” were the Indian ambassador to the US, Meera Shankar, Chinese ambassador Zhang Yesui and US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert O. Blake, Jr.

Rather curiously, reports have made it sound ominous by stating, “Another group which has come under the lens is Indian liberals and so-called bleeding hearts who accepted Fai’s and KAC’s hospitality to attend conferences in US on the Kashmir issue…” The liberals go on junkets for several causes, including plane rides with ministers of the ruling party or the opposition depending on their agenda or that of the organisation they represent. This includes the media. Does their presence help the cause? What is their contribution in real terms?

A peripheral but telling aspect is how some Indians view the unfolding of this episode. A Hindutva group functionary sent an email with an article from the Times of India appended with his comments. He writes, “First, the author calls those who have exposed the Indians (either citizens or those who are of Indian origin) as 'Indian hypernationalists and right-wingers' and 'hardline nationalist'.  However, those Indians who attended the seminars organized by the Pakistan's ISI sponsored front as 'liberals', instead of traitors.  Clearly he wants to prejudice the minds of the readers.  But, you cannot hide the truth. The Indians who were invited to the various programmes were obviously those who would be taking an anti-India position, and not ones who would project a holistic picture.  It is absolutely necessary to expose those Indians who attended these programmes.  Actually, they themselves should come forward and identify themselves.”

There is nothing secret about this. As mentioned earlier, the KAC’s activities were open. While the person is quick to label those attending such conferences as traitors based on the implication of the ISI role in the council, he assumes they would take an anti-India stand. One must remember that there are several influential Hindutva groups too in the US. There are Jewish lobbies.

Since I was never invited, let me add that it is more important to first find out whether anyone has managed to score points for Pakistan on the Kashmir debate and how much it can change the ground realities. The US is interested in counter-terrorism that affects it directly. Has it ever spoken about lives lost in the state – civilian and military?

On what grounds can the US plan to question Kashmiri separatists when they were given visas to travel for seminars that were in the public domain? Should it not look into its own backyard and see how and why anyone can lobby for positions that it claims to be chary of?

Pakistan has, naturally, denied any role. What is the Indian position? If it cannot take a stand regarding a person of Indian origin only because he is Kashmiri, then it only reiterates the attitude of disenchantment that people in the Valley suffer from.

In November last year Ghulam Nabi Fai had written:

“Once again, Kashmir is giving proof that it is not going to compromise, far less abandon, its demand for Azaadi (freedom) which is its birthright and for which it has paid a price in blood and suffering which has not been exacted from any other people of the South Asian subcontinent. Compared to the sacrifice Kashmir has had to endure, India and Pakistan themselves gained their freedom through a highly civilized process. That is a most poignant truth. But even more bitterly ironical is the contrast between the complex and decades-long agony the Kashmir issue has caused to Kashmiris, to Pakistan and to India itself and the simple, rational measures that would be needed for its solution. No sleight of hand is required, no subtle concepts are to be deployed, and no ingenious deal needs to be struck between an Indian and a Pakistani leader with the endorsement of the more pliable Kashmiri figures. The time for subterfuges is gone. All that is needed is going back – yes, going back – to the point of agreement which historically existed beyond doubt between India and Pakistan and jointly resolving to retrieve it with such modifications as are necessitated by the passage of time.

“That point of agreement is the one India as well as Pakistan, each independently, brought to the United Nations Security Council when the Kashmir dispute was first internationalized. In fact, the Council itself took that point as the basis of the resolutions it later formulated.

“The point was one of inescapable principle- -- that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided by the will of the people of the State as impartially ascertained in conditions free from coercion. The two elements of a peaceful settlement thus were, first, the demilitarization of the State (i.e. the withdrawal of the forces of both India and Pakistan) and a plebiscite supervised by the United Nations.

“With propositions of such clarity and character accepted, what room was left for the dispute to arise?”

Is this not the position taken by many political groups within Kashmir, by separatists, by the people?

It would be a pity if due to the ISI angle, the real issues will be pushed aside. America has the arsenal to deal with the ISI, but does it have the will? If Mr. Fai is a front, then why only name the ISI people and not the Congressmen who knew what they were expected to lobby for? Culpability in this case lies across the board. It is utterly ridiculous to make this sound like a terrorist plot when the monies have been traced and people of some stature have been consistently raising the Kashmir issue, not just abroad but at home.

And Kashmiris are not pawns of the United States of America that some official can pocket the money and decide its fate. 

- - -

Also published in Countercurrents , July 24

News meeows

Hurriyat chairman Syed Ali Geelani asked people in Kashmir to stop pelting stones at cops and security personnel:

“Religious debate about the relevance of stone pelting notwithstanding, we have realized stone pelting yielded no contribution to the freedom struggle last year. Instead, we lost 118 youth in last year's unrest.”

Religious debate? Is he out of his mind? The stone pelters were doing it because of disaffection and not because of any religious reason. There is nothing like a freedom struggle of last year that is any different from the years before – the methods alter a bit.

It is Geelani who was riding the wave and not the other way round. Geelani will never win an election in Kashmir; that is not to say those who win elections are right or in their right mind. The Hurriyat leader is trying to take over the real movement, but then what’s new? He is not the only one.

- - -

A person has a right to her/his private beliefs. So, it was surprising to read these views in a TOI interview of India’s former chief justice, P. N.Bhagwati, a devotee of Satya Sai Baba for 42 years, regarding his devotion intruding into his work:

As a professional, each time I would sit down to write a judgment at 5 ‘o'clock in the morning, I was only writing what my god dictated. Bhagwan held my hand as I put pen to paper. Everything that I have achieved in respect of the law, and people say I have achieved a lot, is owing to the guidance and inspiration of Sathya Sai Baba. There is no doubt on that score.

And this from someone who dealt with legal matters and is supposed to be aware -


On alleged offences committed by Sai Baba that were never investigated:

What is the point of investigation? (Agitated) Bhagwan is divinity personified, he radiates joy; millions worship him. He is a teacher of mankind.

On ashrams inmates killed when there was an attempt on Baba’s life:

I am not aware of this. I live in Delhi, so I have no knowledge.

On succession:

…there is no row over succession. How can anybody succeed God? Who succeeded Lord Krishna?

- - -

I really want to steer clear of naked women and women with veils. They are two extreme positions, but after all the noise would we not like to know about non-Islamic countries?

Tourists in Barcelona who wander off the beach onto the streets in just their swimming costumes — or even less — will now face stiff fines. The city hall voted to ban “nudity or virtual nudity in public places” and limit swimming costumes to swimming pools, beaches, adjacent roads and beach walks. Nudists who stray off their designated areas of the beach will be subject to fines of 300 to 500 euros.

From another report:

"We want to make people understand that it's an attitude that we don't like, that it's not banned or punishable but that it's something we don't think is civil," a spokeswoman for the city hall said.

Municipal authorities in the seaside Spanish city have already printed posters showing a couple in swimming costumes with a red line across it, along with another couple dressed normally but without the red line.

Sometime ago it was Sri Lanka:

Nimal Rubasinghe, secretary of the Cultural Affairs Ministry, said the government had received representations calling for a ban on wearing revealing clothing in public. “There have been complaints from various quarters about miniskirts, but we are only considering them and no final decision has been taken.”

“There are individuals and groups representing religious and cultural interests, who have written to us raising concerns that this kind of (mini) dress would corrupt our culture,” Minister T B Ekanayake was quoted as saying by the Lakbima news daily.

President Mahinda Rajapakse’s government had ordered the removal of billboards featuring scantily-clad women.

Second look: Last year, US singer Akon was denied a visa to perform in Sri Lanka after Buddhist monks took offence at one of his videos that featured women in bikinis dancing around a pool in front of a Buddha statue. The Sri Lankan army has committed atrocities against Tamil women.

- - -

I used to like Kiran Bedi. She still makes sense, but what is she doing on TV hosting Aap ki Kachehri (People’s Court) where melodramatic performers enact some flimsy tangled issue and she flashes papers and declares justice? It demeans her position and gives the perception of a kangaroo court. But then, she is part of the Hazare movement and it goes with such a belief.

Interestingly, she also endorses a detergent to convey a clean image!

- - -

Talking of ads, the senior Bachchan couple are selling diamonds. It is nice to see an older couple in such an ad, but Amitabh brings this heavy diamond necklace and is given a run-down by Jaya: “What would you know about diamonds?” He mutters to the camera, “Women!” Then he goes on a discovery tour and brings the necklace with the info and she is impressed. Just when he is exulting over it, she asks, with a sulk, “And bangles?” And he mutters even more silently, “Women…”

We really cannot break ground, can we? Typical avaricious woman, nagging woman. Incidentally, the neck piece is not worth all that effort. It looks like greed.

Who is asking the Sikhs in Kashmir to convert?

by Farzana Versey
Countercurrents, August 20

Has anyone asked this crucial question? Before it can be voiced in cogent terms, the government ’swings into action’ to protect the Sikhs. Let us not forget that the Congress party had done no such protecting of the community in the capital city and the rest of the country in 1984. Those who were indicted and held responsible for the carnage managed to hold important portfolios and stay in power for years. People are still waiting for compensation.

Therefore, the central government’s prompt action – and it is rather surprising that not only does it come from the home minister, but also the finance minister and the external affairs minister – reveals that it has found a new ruse to deal with the people’s movement in the Valley.

Unlike the Kashmiri Pandits who were systematically made to ‘flee’ by vested interests, the Sikhs are not an extremely wealthy or powerful group and decided to stay back. As the largest minority group comprising 60,000 people, they faced problems just as the other locals did. Now there is news that they have received letters asking them to join the protest or convert to Islam. Some of these letters state: “When you are enjoying the joys here, why can’t you share the grief and sorrow of Kashmiris as well? We know you are afraid of bullets. Hold protests inside gurudwaras or leave Kashmir.’’

In these notes there is no mention of conversion. There is a call for joining forces and fighting in their own religious places. The coordinator of the All Party Sikh Coordination Committee (ASCC), Jagmohan Singh Raina, said, “Our community members have received unsigned letters at various places. Some letters have asked Sikhs to embrace Islam.’’

He said his people would not leave and much rather fight the “evil designs’’. It must be noted that these are unsigned letters. Whose evil designs are these? If members of the community do decide to convert, will it not alert the authorities? Will their converting to Islam not become an even greater hindrance to the civilian war taking place?

Why did Raina choose to appeal to separatist organisations like the JKLF, the Hurriyat and rather incongruously the PoK-based United Jihad Council to ensure peace and amity? Why did he and his organisation not address the issue to the chief minister Omar Abdullah?

The issue reached Parliament and, as reports say, the government “held out an assurance that Sikhs had nothing to fear in Kashmir in the wake of reported threats to the minority community from militants to convert to Islam or leave the Valley”. There is no mention of the letters that asked them to join the protest movement. The NDA members, always on the lookout for such ‘communal’ concerns, had to be placated; Chidambaram told them, “nobody will be allowed to harm the Sikh community”.

Indeed, the community ought to be protected but this verbal heroism is senseless when the local population is being harmed everyday. Has there been such immediate sympathy expressed for the ongoing war and killings of civilians and security personnel? A shoe thrown at Omar Abdullah gets more mileage than the street protests.

Pranab Mukherjee became magnanimous: "Not only Muslims of Kashmir but the whole of India would rise as one to stand by the Sikh community.” When was the last time the whole of India stood as one to stand by a community, and how could it when the establishment orchestrates such harm?

Has anybody informed the whole of India about where those letters have come from? Why did the Sikh representative in Kashmir talk to the militant groups? Why was the PoK organisation informed? Assuming these threats are coming from the Pakistani side, why would they be interested in “peace and amity”? It just does not sound right.

While Syed Ali Shah Geelani has called these letters fake and had on an earlier occasion dramatically stated that the Sikhs could not be forced to join the protests and harming them would be like inflicting a wound on his body, it conveys the impression that his body has a great deal of importance. And if the JKLF and the Hurriyat do have a say in every such matter, then it begs the query as to what is the status of an elected government in the state?

It is a known fact that when militant groups send out threats, they like to flash their credentials. Since this is an upsurge from the ground level, it would be presumed that the locals are sending those letters. This is damaging to them as well as to what they have held important all along – the coexistence with minorities. This is reminiscent of the planted fliers posted on walls during the exodus of Pandits.

This time both the central and state governments do not know how to deal with the uprising in the Valley. Omar Abdullah can only give assurances when he knows well that there is nothing he can do because there is nothing he has done to salvage the situation. The separatist organisations are also riding on the wave rather than taking responsibility for it.

Instead of assurances in Parliament and smart talk, the government should find out where the mischief is taking place and the origin of those letters. The Sikhs who have received them should file FIRs in the police station. That will be the first step towards getting the government involved rather than the government just standing from afar and issuing homilies.

There is far more here then appears evident and the shoe could point in any direction. It’s time for the establishment to talk on its feet.

If it’s Friday it must be Kashmir

The separatists in the Valley have their own calendar now marked with specific days of protest, we are told. Sunday is a working day.

Is this to be seen as an Islamic agenda, as reports have made it out to be? Kashmir University vice-chancellor Prof Riyaz Punjabi has a different take:

"Teachers need to gear up to complete the syllabus so that all examinations are held on time. So there shall be no holidays in the varsity henceforth, including Sundays, gazetted holidays, summer and winter vacations. It was also decided that the varsity shall operate from 9.30 am to 6 pm with immediate effect."

This is in response to the strikes that are being called almost every other day. Nowhere does it state that the Sunday holiday is being substituted. However, newspapers have conjectured:

Central agencies feel that the change may lead to Sunday being replaced by Friday as the weekly holiday, as has been the norm in Islamic countries.

Besides the ‘feeling’ of central agencies, there is the technical aspect of managing major infrastructural changes. Incidentally, Pakistan, of who Geelani is considered a stooge, does not enforce a Friday holiday. Instead of seeing the role of the universities to make up for lost time, we have the media indulging in such idle thinking. Even if it is true, it won’t alter the face of insurgency movement. The separatists have often used the Friday namaaz as the best means to address the congregation on political affairs.

If, indeed, this move is being Islamised, then what about the call for Ramzan ceasefire by the establishment in the past where it was assumed that a month of non-firing will cool off the militants, although it was promoted on respect for religion grounds? Why was the government playing to the gallery?

This time round, Omar Abdullah’s political advisor, Davinder Singh Rana, is trying to show muscle:

"We have already instructed the police to enforce law and order besides making people feel free to spend their life as per their choice.”

Yes, long time no see. So, if some people want to make Thursday evenings their chill-out time during curfew, it is like okey-dokey and those who prefer Saturday night fever in the heat of firing then that’s their choice.

Clearly, democracy means choosing the right day to stay at home.