Backpage

IT is now seven weeks since the earthquake hit Kashmir. Officially, close to 100,000 individuals have already perished, some in the fateful few seconds that the tremors lasted, but many more subsequently. And these numbers can only grow as the weather worsens. However, more than the fury of nature, Kashmir represents the continuing tragedy of our callousness, ineptitude, and the frozen imagination of our state elites.

Many have pointed out that unlike the earthquake which devastated Bhuj in early 2001 or the tsunami that visited the coastal South around Christmas last year, the trauma of Kashmir has failed to sufficiently move us. True, the government immediately sanctioned emergency aid and the armed forces, that much reviled force in the region, acted swiftly to come to the aid of affected peoples even at the cost of neglecting their own. But, there has been little commensurate outpouring of either activity or sympathy from civil society – political parties vying with each other to collect money, different state governments rushing relief, corporates announcing donations, or NGOs sending in volunteers. So stark is the difference in civic response to previous humanitarian disasters that the Mirwaiz, Umar Farooq was constrained to ask whether the rest of the country even considered the Kashmiris as one of their own.

Surely, this is not only because we have become weary of disasters, or that last year’s tsunami exhausted our reservoir of concern for fellow citizens? Is it that not just the Indian state but we as Indians are more interested in Kashmir than Kashmiris? Any talk of ceding even an inch of territory would elicit howls of protest. But note, despite episodically referring to ‘all of Kashmir as ours’, refusing to accept the ‘disputed’ nature of the territory and expressing ire when confronted with the phrase ‘Azad Kashmir’ as distinct from ‘Pakistan occupied Kashmir’, no one in our media even once referred to the dead and wounded across the ‘line of control’ as our own. It does appear that Kashmir features in our consciousness primarily as a counter argument to the idea of Pakistan.

Maybe this is an over-reading. Kashmir, after all, has for two decades been a conflict zone. The ever-present spectre of terror and violence can deter all but the most determined of ‘do-gooders’. Few NGOs have had anything to do with the state barring the small but vocal tribe of human rights activists. And it is only in the last few years, with some decline in the scale and intensity of violence, the growing constituency for peace and some return of ‘normal’ politics that we have witnessed the emergence of a local civil society sector. As much as the difficult terrain, and restrictions on movements because of security considerations, the relative absence of reliable local partners too may explain the low enthusiasm of ‘non-Kashmiri’ organizations to involve themselves in relief, reconstruction and rehabilitation. Similarly, it may be unrealistic to expect corporates who have had little to do with the state for a variety of political and policy reasons to show more than a token concern.

The fact is that Kashmir, like the regions of our North East, is insufficiently integrated in our national imagination. And the situation is not helped by local political elites, be they of political parties or insurgent/azadi groups, continually foregrounding their distinctiveness if not alienation. No wonder, the further we move away from the region, for instance in the states of the peninsula, Kashmir is seen more as an irritant that absorbs and ties up much needed resources and diverts attention from other urgent tasks.

Unfortunately, the way we respond in times of crisis can serve to further deepen the divide and alienation. It is possible to understand the practical/real-politik difficulties of being able to stretch a helping hand across the line of control. And it would be churlish not to recognize the steps that the Indian government has taken – from offering material assistance, to opening more points on the LOC to facilitate cross-border interaction. Yet, the overall response, both within and without the nation-state borders, remains woefully inadequate.

The earthquake of October 8 demonstrated the fragility, if not the futility, of remaining prisoner to artificially constructed boundary lines – on the ground as much as in our minds. It offered an opportunity for a breakthrough, of being able to act ‘outside the box’ and thus attend to a festering sore that has for five decades plus kept the entire subcontinent a prisoner of the past.

This was a time when the leadership of the region – not just India, Pakistan and Kashmir – should have been acting together. But once again, we seem to have missed the bus. The recently concluded SAARC summit did express concern about markets, and terrorism. It even talked of setting up a SAARC university. Yet it failed singularly to respond to the suffering of a much battered people, a tragedy that shows little sign of abating.

Harsh Sethi