The killing of 23 Kashmiri pandits by “unidentified” gunmen in Wandhama village of Kashmir on the eve of Republic Day, has rudely shaken Kashmiri people, Muslims and Hindus alike. The shock waves transcended the Kashmiri community, affecting not only people all over India but sensitive minds elsewhere too. This was not merely one more statistical addition to the killings in Kashmir during the last eight years of insurgency. The significance of the tragedy also went beyond the fact that this incident meant the killing of the largest number of pandits in a single day. All of them, including nine women and four children, were completely uninvolved in the strife and innocent.

Apart from the brutal manner in which they were killed and roasted, what makes the tragedy really poignant and different from other types of killings in Kashmir is the fact that these pandit families had reposed so much faith in the humanitarian precepts of Islam and its followers that they had defied the decision of the rest of the community to migrate out of the Valley to seek shelter elsewhere.

That they could continue to live with safety and honour through the insurgency years was often cited as eloquent evidence of the non-communal character of Kashmiri Muslims and the ‘Azadi’ movement. This fact was also used by dissident leaders to support their contention that the almost en masse migration of Kashmiri pandits in 1990 was not because of any real threat to their existence but was engineered by the then governor, Jagmohan, with ulterior motives. Almost every Kashmiri Muslim leader has repeatedly declared that the Kashmiri identity was incomplete without pandits and that the return to the Valley of those who had fled would be welcome.

The first blow to the concept of the secular Kashmiri identity was struck by the militants when seven Kashmiri pandits, living in Kashmir, were killed at Sangrama in March last for no other fault except that they were Hindus. The Wandhama killing has reinforced the same feeling. What shocked the conscience of the Kashmiri Muslims was that in their view this as not only an attack on the spirit of Kashmiriat but also on their concept of Islam. A complete hartal in protest against these killings expressed intensity of their shock.

These killings have eroded international sympathy for the azadi movement much more than any other incident. Although no militant group had moral courage to own it, there is no doubt that the movement is no longer under the control of a Kashmiri leadership — it is being led from across the border. Most of its cadres are also being imported from outside. In its present form, the militant movement is increasingly becoming a liability for the cause of Kashmiriat as well as azadi. Those who claim to be the champions of these causes have to realise, in their own self-interest, that the gun has outlived its utility; any further reliance on it will only be counter productive.

Likewise, the leaders in New Delhi have hopefully realised that force alone could not solve the Kashmir problem. The political measures taken by the government of India in the course of the last year or so, including holding of elections, have already paid it some dividends. India could have got much greater political and diplomatic mileage over the selective killings of seven pandits in Sangrama, 23 pandits in Wandhama, 15 Hindu bus passengers near Kishtwar and 14 Hindus in Barshalla village of Doda district by the militants, if meanwhile the security forces had been trained to maintain a decent record of respecting human rights.

Unfortunately, nine persons were gunned down in Ladarana village in Kishtwar tehsil of Jammu region on Eid Day soon after the Wandhama tragedy, ostensibly for the resistance they offered to the arrest of two youths by the army for interrogation . Prima facie, the use of force far exceeded the requirement of the situation. This incident was clearly counter-productive. While the killing of Kashmiri pandits and other Hindus had burdened Kashmiri Muslims with a sense of guilt, the army action in Ladarana tended to neutralise it. If popular anger had been aroused against militancy and its mentors across the border, the army action diluted that sentiment. If the Wandhama incident damaged the cause of militants, the Ladarana incident tended to repair it.

Thus India missed an opportunity, due to a lapse on the part of the army jawans in winning over the people of Kashmir and isolating Pakistan in ternationally. One may recall how a similar opportunity was missed when popular wrath against a pro-Pak militant outfit for killing of Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq was diverted against India by thoughtless firing on his funeral procession in May 1990. More disciplined behaviour of the security forces alone can enable government of India to turn the tables against Pakistan on the issue of human rights in Kashmir, in particular, and on the Kashmir issue in general. In such a case, human rights could be made the main plank of India’s Kashmir policy.

Apart from the damage done by the army jawans in Ladarana in enabling the government of India to mobilise a sense of outrage felt by the Kashmiri Muslims against Pak-supported militancy, two more thoughtless actions have weakened India’s moral capacity to make use of the opportunity offered by similar thoughtless action of the militants. Firstly, having recorded the reactions of Kashmiri Muslims against the action, Nalini Singh in her programme in Doordarshan dismissed that reaction as a mere show (dikhawa). She not only added insult to their injuries, but also widened the gulf between them and the rest of the countrymen.

Similarly, the attack on Shabbir Shah by some Kashmiri pandits, when he visited a hospital in Jammu to express sympathy with those who were injured in a police clash while taking out a protest procession, had the same effect.

The only silver lining in the dark clouds hovering over Kashmir is the fact that the incidents aroused universal condemnation by all the communities. People demonstrated their strong disapproval of the killing of innocents at both places in unambiguous terms. This provides an opportunity to mobilise and provide a channel for the articulation of the growing revulsion of people against the cult of the gun. If some credible mechanism can be created to isolate the killing of innocents and to identify the culprits, the innocent blood shed in the recent two incidents may not be entirely in vain.

The government of India should also seriously consider the popular demand in Kashmir to allow international human rights organisations like Amnesty International and Asia Watch to visit the state and to identify the real culprits responsible for the heinous crime at Wandhama. Alternatively, leading human rights activists from India who also enjoy the confidence of Kashmiri Muslims could take the initiative and undertake the task, with local cooperation, of exposing the hidden hand behind the killing of pandits in Kashmir. They should get full cooperation from the government as well. Much remains to be done to activate the National Human Rights Commission and the state Human Rights Commission before they become credible institutions in J K. Similarly, an independent high-powered inquiry is called for to locate the responsibility for the killings at Ladarana. In no case should the reactions to the killings in either place be allowed to assume a communal form.

The present situation in Kashmir and the present state of the Kashmiri Muslim mind demands a dialogue between the government of India and the leaders of the azadi movement. It is in the interest of both to agree on a limited agenda of minimising the killing of innocents and on setting up a credible mechanism to monitor them. If this could be isolated from other controversial issues, it might create a ground for a dialogue on the wider dispute. Even a unilateral decision by either of the parties to stop the killing of innocents will help it score over the other.

Balraj Puri
(The Jammu-based writer is author of Kashmir: Towards Insugency and a respected civil rights activist)