Author: A. N. Dar
Publication: The Free Press Journal
Date: December 6, 2002
Strange though it may sound, Mufti
Mohammed Sayeed himself has come to be in a siege. His much publicised
but controversial programme of releasing some of those in jail, a promise
which helped him come to power, is being severely tested. The day he released
Yaseen Malik the separatist leader shouted severe condemnation of Mufti,
even questioning his representative capacity and challenging him to fight
an election against him. This could be glossed over by a chief minister
as the stand of a separatist who did not want to show that he was going
to compromise in return for his release. But Mufti's challenges did not
end up with that.
The chief minister had hardly settled
down to fulfilling his common minimum programme when other challenges in
the shape of daily violence confronted him. On the very day of his swearing
in the militants bombed his house and sprayed bullets and bombs in many
other areas. Violence continued every day till it came to be the turn of
the famed Raghunath Mandir in the heart of Jammu. The militants knew that
it would hurt Jammu the most and with it the rest of the country which
had voted actively against the old regime and made it possible for the
new government to take over.
If the feeling grew that the state
government was releasing the separatists while terrorist violence took
place public opinion in the country would turn against the Mufti government
in no uncertain manner. The spread of this feeling would go against any
step in lowering tension by releasing some of the separatists. That could
spell the end of any desired step that the state government wanted to take.
This is what the separatists and
those who disfavoured him politically want to happen. Their sights were
clear; they knew that this kind of violence would not be accepted in the
country. The government could not go on releasing jailed separatists while
temples were being destroyed and people were being killed.
Mufti Mohammed Sayeed is seasoned
enough as a politician to know that the country would not accept this and
with the Gujarat election only a few days away, the Congress, his coalition
partner, would be put in an embarrassing state. He has a bad record to
look back on when the release of militants after the kidnapping of his
daughter Rubbiya is said to have set off militancy for over ten years.
You may be able to bear all this but any politician who cares about the
pulse of the people would know that the people in Jammu and the rest of
the country would not be able to take it.
Already controversies have arisen
between the Centre and the state government over the wisdom of releasing
the separatists and whether there has been proper coordination between
the two. This is not much to be surprised at. In such controversies, politics
plays a part and there is much temptation to blame each other and score
points. But there is a limit to this because human lives are involved and
so also the morale of the country while it fights terrorism.
The parties constituting the present
coalition government fought the elections to bring about a new order into
play. While both want to fight terrorism, the means they choose are different
from the previous regime. The present regime would try to bring succor
to those who have suffered in the militancy. As Mufti Mohammed Sayeed argued,
those who have become orphans or lost their jobs or houses because of militancy,
why should they have to suffer. It is to bring solace to them that a part
of the common minimum programme is addressed. Giving them relief is not
only a humanitarian job but it would also bring down the political temperature.
Let us be clear that this kind of
a programme would not end terrorism. It would be a travesty if the Kashmir
government releasing those against whom there are no severe charges has
to fight violence too. Those against whom there are specific charges should
not be released. At the same time they should not be kept in jail endlessly
without bringing forward any charges. Not only would they become heroes
and ``Nelson Mandelas'' but also gain unnecessary popularity. This should
be one aim of the common minimum programme.
The other aim is to create conditions
in the state which will end terrorism but not by adopting the tactics of
bullet for bullet. Is this needed while fighting the terrorists? They have
to be chased and killed wherever they appear.
We cannot have a stable society
if terrorism continues and the terrorists are able to kill and loot and
get away. No government can last like this. It has to fight terrorism.
One method of fighting terrorism
is to see to it that the terrorists most of whom come from Pakistan do
not receive support from the local population. How can this be done except
by having on your side people who feel that they are not acted against
and there is a government which is fair and human. The one charge that
worked against the Farooq Abdullah regime was that he was unconcerned with
the woes of the people.
The common minimum programme wants
to remove the irritants that have crept into the way of life of Kashmiris
during the years of militancy. Many of the irritants are perhaps nec-essary
when you are fighting the militancy but many of these could be and should
be eliminated so that the citizens live more peaceful lives.
Take the cases of making searches
of homes. Anyone who knows the lives of the people of Kashmir would conclude
that searches are disgraceful as they intrude into the lives of private
citizens. Yet what would the security forces do if they do not go in for
searches to look for he terrorists? Searches become inevitable but these
hurt the privacy of the people. No rules can be laid down on this. Yet
what an enlightened government would do is to reduce them to the minimum.
Similarly there have been cases of militants walking under a burqa go give
the impression that a woman is passing by. But under the burqa a militant
can be holding a bullet and when the target comes by, he shoots.
Now what are the security forces
to do? They must see whether there is a woman or not. This will have to
be probed but this must be done carefully and judiciously.
The minimum programme tries to see
to it that the irksome measures are minimised. If this results in weakening
the local support of the terrorists, the back of terrorism would be broken.
This is also the way of fighting terrorism.
So the people should not mind while
the state government tries to end the local support by keeping a satisfied
people who are not unnecessarily troubled and whose woes are taken care
of.
Let us not argue that if a person
is released from jail, this would lessen terrorism. Pakistan cannot be
taken in by Mufti's initiatives. Mufti should know this. Pakistan would
not give up its programme. But good governance, being fair to people who
have been detained without charges and giving succor to the victims of
the militancy can reduce the local support the terrorists enjoy. That is
also a way of fighting terrorism.
Will Mufti succeed in this.
