Kashmir: A Tragic Tale of Betrayal by the Indian State
- Anand Singh
During of the disastrous flood in the Kashmir valley in 2014, Modi government had run a massive propaganda campaign through media with the narrative that the rescue and relief work carried out by Indian army had won the hearts and minds of Kashmiri people. Those who knew the ground reality were aware that it was far from the truth; but the propaganda campaign was mainly directed towards convincing Indian people that a situation of normalcy has returned to Kashmir as Kashmiris have begun to accept the Indian rule. But like any bourgeois propaganda the effect of this campaign was short-lived. Kashmir valley erupted in rage yet again in the mid 2016 after the encounter of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani. This eruption soon turned into mass uprising against the Indian state. Even though the valley has witnessed many uprisings in the last 70 years, most recently in 2010, the spread, duration and intensity and mass participation in the 2016 uprising has surpassed the previous ones. It was no longer confined to the urban areas, rather it had a strong base in the rural parts of South Kashmir. This round of uprising lasted for more than four months and the number of days for which curfew was imposed in the valley broke previous record. The increasing participation of youth, women and children in this uprising was conspicuous. Many are calling it as ‘Kashmir’s New-Intifada’. The use of some creative methods in the struggle such as the graffiti presentations on the fences and shutters was also seen during this uprising.The militant mood and the tenacity of protestors has unnerved even those who have served Indian state as strategist and policy makers.
Former National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan warned Indian state in following terms:
“History will not, however, spare those who do not make a distinction between current realities and past situations.
“The death of Burhan Wani in a July 8 encounter (Kokernag, Anantnag district) would in the past have routinely led to a minor flare-up. Pakistan’s involvement in such instances was a given. Hence, this long spell of continuing violence in the Valley needs somewhat deeper introspection to understand the real causative factors responsible for this situation.
“The ‘unattached’ militants involved in the current violence is a new phenomenon — and a far cry from the erstwhile ‘foreign’ militants. Kashmir had become accustomed since end-1988 to the presence of foreign militants and their involvement in stoking violence.1
Clearly Narayanan here is debunking the narrative propagated by the current government that the uprising was sponsored by Pakistan and not home grown. Even Yashwant Sinha, former minister of foreign affairs and a member of BJP, was forced to concede that “It must be noted with regret that the initiative this time has passed into the hands of children of 10, 12, 14 and 16 who are sovereign unto themselves and outside the control of the established leadership. The leaders are forced to follow, they are unable to lead.”2
As always, the Indian state responded to this popular uprising with brute force. As a consequence, 115 people were killed; 15,000 were injured, out of which 7330 were injured by pellets; 22 youth lost total eyesight; 307 youth are on the verge of losing eyesight; 1255 have partial damage in the eyes; 37 schools were burnt; 9700 persons were arrested and 608 were detained under Public Safety Act.3
After the bloody summer and autumn, the uprising ebbed as winter approached. The government representatives have again begun to make the lofty claims of normalcy being returned to the valley. Defence minister Manohar Parrikar went on to make a ridiculous claim that Modi government’s demonetization drive was in fact responsible for the halt in stone pelting incidents in the Kashmir valley. The history of Kashmir, however, bears witness to the fact that the periods of the so-called normalcy is merely the prelude to the next round of flare-up. The reason being the brazen obduracy of the Indian state in not recognizing the right to self-determination of the Kashmiri people and its continued attempt to whitewash the long history of its betrayal in Kashmir. It is, therefore, imperative to have a glance at this history which is often concealed behind the jingoistic hubris of Kashmir being an integral part of India.
Tragic history of Kashmir dispute
On December 16 2016, the Supreme Court snubbed Jammu & Kashmir High Court for asserting the state’s “sovereignty” and “sovereign powers” and said J&K “has no vestige of sovereignty outside the Constitution of India”. The court also said, “It is clear that the state of Jammu & Kashmir has no vestige of sovereignty outside the Constitution of India and its own Constitution, which is subordinate to the Constitution of India… they (residents of state) are governed first by the Constitution of India and also by the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir.” While making this pronouncement, the apex court of India was actually reiterating the stance of the Indian state of living in denial mode and wiping out the facts of history. Ironically, it is this denial which adds up to the alienation of Kashmiris from the Indian state.
The alienation of the Kashmiri people from Indian bourgeois state had in fact begun since its birth itself. At the time of independence from British colonial rule, Kashmir was one of the 562 princely states which were under the control of British raj. Except for Hyderabad, Junagarh and Jammu & Kashmir, all the princely states decided to be part of either of the two dominions, India and Pakistan. The Nizam of Hyderabad was dreaming for an independent state while the Nawab of Junagarh wanted to join Pakistan. India’s argument in the case of these two princely states was that it is the people who are sovereign and hence they would decide their fate and not the rulers. Since the majority of the people in the two states wanted to be part of India, they joined India. It is a less known fact of history that the fate of Junagarh was decided through a referendum in which overwhelming majority chose to be part of India. However, the situation in Jammu and Kashmir was exactly the opposite. The majority of people in J&K were Muslim, while its ruler Hari Singh was a Hindu. Hari Singh wanted J&K to make an independent nation so that his dynasty continues to rule there in perpetuity. It is to be noted that the state of J&K was purchased by Gulab Singh, an ancestor of Hari Singh, from the British as part of the infamous Treaty of Amritsar in 1846 after the defeat of Sikhs in the first Anglo-Sikh war in merely 7.5 million rupees. The British had complete faith in the loyalty of the Dogra King Gulab Singh as he had joined the British after betraying the first Sikh rule. At the time of independence, the Muslim population of J&K stood at 77 percent of the total population. Talking about only the Kashmir valley, the Muslim population was more than 94 percent. During the reign of Dogra kings in J&K, most of the landlords were Hindus, while the poor peasants were mostly Muslims. This correspondence between the class polarization and religious polarization later helped the fundamentalist forces of both the religions to strengthen their social base. However, it is also true that owing to the combined influence of Vaishnav, Shaiv and Sufi traditions, the nature of Islam is completely different in J&K than other parts of Indian subcontinent. It is because of this reason that despite the concerted efforts by Pakistan to take the struggle of the Kashmiri people towards the demand of merging it into Pakistan, the struggle for Azadi in Kashmir has so far maintained its independent existence.
At the time of independence of India from the British colonial slavery, the most popular leader of Kashmir was Sheikh Abdulla. In the beginning of his political career Sheikh Abdulla was part of a party named Muslim Conference which used to struggle for increasing the representation of Kashmiri Muslims in the government jobs. However, in due course this movement started taking the form of the struggle for democracy and soon it turned into a movement of Kashmiri peasants against the feudal Dogra rule. After this turn, the movement started getting the support of the non-Muslim Kashmiri leaders such as Pandit Premnath Bajaj and Sardar Buddh Singh as also of the leaders of the national movement such as Gandhi, Nehru, Azad and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan. In turn Sheikh also got influenced from the Indian freedom struggle and its leadership and he began to realize that the movement needs to be made secular in order to expand it. It was because of this reason that Sheikh put forward a proposal to rename the Party from Muslim Conference to National Conference, which was pass on 11 June 1939. It was at that time that Sheikh Abdulla, along with the non-Muslim progressive intellectuals, prepared the draft of a charter named “National Demands” which was a prelude to future’s “New Kashmir” manifesto, in which the demand was made for a democratic constitution for the people of Kashmir. The National Conference under the leadership of Sheikh Abdulla was a staunch opponent of the “Two Nation Theory” which was being popularized by Jinnah at that time. Sheikh was vehemently opposed to joining a religion-based nation, i.e. Pakistan. At the same time, he was also suspicious of complete merger with India.
On May 5 1946, Sheikh Abdulla, in a statement, talked about the right to self-determination of all the nationalities of India after the re-division of the states on the scientific basis while taking into consideration the cultural and linguistic similarities. It is noteworthy that this thinking of Sheikh Abdulla was influenced by the then Communist Party of India (CPI)’s line. It was in the May 1946 itself that Sheikh launched a movement against Maharaja Hari Singh, named ‘Quit Kashmir’, after which he was arrested and given a 3-year sentence. However, he was released after 16 months on 29 September 1947. Immediately after his release Sheikh Abdulla said, “If the 40 lakhs of people living in Jammu & Kashmir are by-passed and the State declares accession to India or Pakistan, I shall raise the banner of revolt and we face a struggle”.4 In October 1947, Pakistan-supported Kabayalis launched an attack on Kashmir to which Hari Singh’s army was utterly incapable to resist. If this was not enough, a mutiny took place within the Hari Singh’s army in the Poonch region. Besides, a situation of communal tension developed in Kashmir because of the influx of refugees in the wake of the partition. The Kabayali attack and the mutiny in Maharaja’s army in Poonch ensured that his ambition of remaining the ruler of an independent state was dashed and he was forced to seek help of Indian army in order to counter the attack. As a quid pro quo, India sought Hari Singh’s signature on the Instrument of Accession. However, this accession was provisional as was mentioned in the documents attached with the instrument of accession and in a white paper published by Indian government on J&K. In the white paper issued by Government of India, it was clearly written: “…our assurance that we shall withdraw our troops from Kashmir as soon as peace and order are restored and leave the decision about the future of the State to the people of the State is not merely a pledge to your Government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the world”5
Right from 1947, Indian Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru had been stressing on many occasions that it is the people of Jammu and Kashmir who will have the final say in deciding about the accession of the state into India and he does not have any intention to forcibly annex it. Nehru had publicly spoken about holding referendum much before taking the Kashmir issue to the United Nations. After the Kabayali attack, the Indian government took the issue to the United Nations. On 20 January, the Security Council of the United Nations passed the resolution number 39 in which it was directed to form a commission for the purpose of examination of the issue on the basis of facts. Subsequently, the Security Council passed yet another resolution (resolution number 47) in which it was stated to hold the impartial referendum for accession of Jammu and Kashmir into India or Pakistan. India had been talking about holding referendum in Kashmir till 1953, but later it turned its back on this promise.
After the Pakistan-supported Kabayali attack in October 1947, Hari Singh, along with signing the instrument of accession, also appointed an emergency government and Sheikh Abdulla was given the responsibility of leading this government. In March 1948, an interim government was formed in J&K and Sheikh Abdulla formally took oath of Prime Minister of J&K. One of the responsibilities vested with this government was that it would make the constitution of the state. Besides, Sheikh Abdulla and a few other Kashmiri leaders were included in the constituent assembly of India. In the constitution made by the Constituent Assembly of India, J&K was given the status of special state according to which J&K was conferred the right of making its separate constitution; The right of India in regard to J&K was limited to defence, foreign affairs and communication only.
During his tenure of the Prime Minister of J&K, Sheikh Abdulla was in favour of the autonomy of J&K rather than its accession to Pakistan or referendum. However, after the Praja Rajya Parishad movement led by Shyama Prasad Mukherji, the Kashmir issue was communalized like never before, which led to increasing alienation of Kashmiris from India and even Sheikh Abdulla began to reconsider his stand. Praja Rajya Parishad movement was supported by Bhartiya Jansangh, previous avatar of BJP. This movement represented the interests of the Dogra landlords of Jammu whose economic power had declined due to the radical land reforms carried out by the Sheikh Abdulla government. But Praja Rajya Parishad gave communal colour to the Kashmir issue in order to conceal its class interests. The main demands of this movement were that the state of J&K be divided into the three regions of Jammu, Ladakh and Kashmir and the regions of Jammu and Ladakh be completely merged into India by removing article 370 from these two regions. The growing social base of this movement in Jammu had rattled both Sheikh Abdulla and Nehru. Sheikh Abdulla, who was already suspicious on the question of accession after some communal statements made by Patel, became even more circumspect on the question of accession of Kashmir into India. Nehru’s fear with the increasing popularity of this communal movement stemmed from the fact that the implication of acceding Jammu into India on the basis of religion was that the Indian claim on the Kashmir valley would weaken.
The increasing communalization of the Kashmir issue in the wake of the strengthening of the Praja Rajya Parishad movement made Sheikh Abdulla to think about the independence of Kashmir rather than just autonomy within the Indian union. This was the time when the phase of bitterness started in the relationship between Sheikh and Nehru. This bitterness reached its pinnacle when on 8 August 1953, all of sudden Sheikh was arrested. Since then, for 11 years he had to spend most of his time under custody. Instead of Sheikh Abdulla, India made its puppet Bakshi Gulam Mohammad the Prime Minister of J&K. After that Nehru started to turn his back on his promise to hold referendum. Although India holds Pakistan responsible for not being able to hold referendum as per the UN resolution as the latter did not demilitarize the region, the fact of the matter is that it was Nehru himself who had promised the Kashmiri people not to accede Kashmir without their consent and hence it was his responsibility to fulfill this promise. On 6 February, 1954 the Constituent Assembly declared Kashmir’s accession to be irreversible.
The suspension of Sheikh Abdulla’s government and his arrest in 1953 took the alienation of the Kashmiri people from Indian state to newer heights. The electoral malpractices in J&K at the behest of New Delhi right since 1951 played an important role in increasing the alienation of Kashmiri people. In the 1951 constituent assembly elections in the National Conference candidates were elected unopposed on 73 out of 75 seats because the nomination of the opposition candidates was cancelled on perfunctory grounds. It was on the basis of these elections that the legislative assembly of the state was formed which had given approval to dilute the special status given to J&K in article 370 of Indian Constitution. Further, the rigging was done even in the elections in 1957 and 1962 on whose basis Bakshi Gulam Mohammad ran his government as more or less an agent of India. In the election to the legislative assembly in 1967 and in the Lok Sabha elections in 1971 the rigging was done in the leadership of G.M. Sadiq, yet another leader of National Conference. There was a strong protest against rigging in the 1967 elections.
Sheikh Abdulla was released from prison in 1964; but next year he was sent to Kodaikanal under detention as he had met Chinese Prime Minister Chau Enlai in Algiers. It was only in 1968 that he was finally released. After the one and half decade long arrest and detention, Sheikh had grown weaker and he had begun to think about compromising with the Indian government. After 1971 war, he completely bent before the Indian government. As per the Indira Gandhi-Sheikh Abdulla agreement of 1975, he gave up the demand for Kashmir’s autonomy as well and gave his sanction to the dilution of article 370.
Even before the Indira Gandhi-Sheikh Abdulla agreement of 1975, some groups had been formed in Kashmir which openly used to talk about the Azadi of Kashmir through armed struggle. Such groups were strengthened after the capitulation of Sheikh in the above agreement and thus began a new phase in the struggle of the Kashmiri nationality. Among the groups which were vehemently opposed to the agreement was ‘Jammu and Kashmir People’s League’ which used to talk about Azadi of Kashmir. Its founders included Sheikh Abdul Aziz, Musadiq Adil, Bashir Ahmad Tota, Azam Inqalabi, Abdul Hamid Wani. Shabbir Shah was the general secretary of this group. Later this organization suffered from numerous schisms.
Sheikh Abdulla continued to remain the Chief Minister of J&K until his death in 1982 after which Farooq Abdulla took up his mantle. In July 1984, Indira Gandhi suspended Farooq Abdulla’s government which caused increased resentment in Kashmir valley. The curfew in Srinagar lasted for 72 days. However, Farooq Abdulla also signed an agreement with Rajiv Gandhi in 1986 and he again became the Chief Minister of J&K. In March 1987, election for J&K legislative assembly was held in which National Conference and Congress formed an alliance. There was a large-scale rigging in these elections. The opposition party Muslim United Front (MUF), despite being very popular in the Kashmir valley, could not win seats in the legislative assembly. After the rigging in these elections, large section of Kashmiri youth got disillusioned with the electoral process and many of them took up the guns. It was after this that the armed struggle in J&K made its effective presence felt. It is noteworthy that most of the leaders who later chose the path of terrorism took part in the 1987 elections and the rigging in that election disillusioned them. Four main members, Abdul Hamid Sheikh, Ashfaq Mazid Wani, Javed Ahmad Mir and Yasin Malik, of Islamic Students Federation, known as Hazi group which was formed in 1986, had actually extended their support to MUF. Even the Hizbul Mujahideen Supremo Syed Salahuddin, whose real name is Mohammad Yusuf Shah, had participated in the 1987 elections as a candidate of MUF.
In the earlier phase, the leadership of the armed struggle for the Azadi of Kashmir was with Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). JKLF was founded in 1978 by Amanulla Khan in England who was a member of Kashmir Liberation Army of Maqbool Bhat. Maqbool Bhat was active in the Indian occupied Kashmir while Amanulla Khan was active in Pak occupied Kashmir. In the initial phase JKLF was a secular organization and it talked about freedom from both India and Pakistan. But after the brutal repression by the Indian state the Islamic fundamentalists managed to hold their sway in JKLF. On 11 February 1986, Maqbool Bhat was hanged in Tihar jail, after which the resentment among the Kashmiri youth began to rise further. Behind the mass uprising seen in the aftermath of the electoral rigging in 1987, the misgovernance of the last 40 years, economic disarray, unemployment and corruption were also among the major reasons. In 1988, rising public anger was witnessed in Kashmir valley after the repression of the demonstration against the increase in the electricity rates. In the same year, police opened fire indiscriminately on the supporters of Kashmir’s Azadi. In December 1989, the inferno of mass revolt engulfed the entire Kashmir valley. In order to crush this revolt Indian government imposed Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in the valley to give unlimited power to the army. But, by 1990 lakhs of people hit the street in the valley chanting the slogan of Azadi. It was at this time that Pakistan began to send Mujahideens to Kashmir for Jihad to add Islamic fundamentalist flavor to the movement. These Mujahideens were trained during the fight against USSR. It was at this very time that untold atrocities were committed on the small minority Kashmiri Pundits killings hundreds of them and forcing lakhs to leave the valley. It was after this incident that the Fascist brigade of Sangh Parivar strengthened its hold among Kashmiri Pundits and thus implemented its hideous strategy of communalizing the Kashmir issue. It was during this phase that the pro-Pakistan organizations such as Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Toiba managed to strengthen their base in the valley.
Indian army brutally repressed the armed uprising in the Kashmir valley. By the end of 1990 it had managed to control the armed struggle and terrorism in Kashmir to a large extent. By 1995, Yasin Malik of JKLF had yielded to India and abandoned the violent path. However, during this process, Indian army carried out flagrant Human Rights violation which led to unprecedented hatred amongst the Kashmiri people against Indian state. The tragic memory of Kunan-Poshpora gang rape by Indian army is still not forgotten by Kashmiris. Besides, there is a long tale of other rape cases, fake encounters, missing people. Some estimates put the number of people killed since 1989 at 70,000. Some 8,000 non-combatants are thought to have been disappeared, and 6,000 are believed to have been buried in mass graves.
By the beginning of the 21st century, India had managed to contain terrorism in Kashmir to a large extent. After the 11 September 2001 terrorist attack on US, there was a decline in number of terrorists infiltrating into India as US came down heavily on Pakistan. Even the government reports bear witness to the fact that there has been a sharp decline in the terrorist incidents since then. As per a government report, there are no more than 1000 terrorists in the entire Kashmir valley. But still there are about 7 lakh soldiers of army and para military forces in the valley. The infamous draconian law AFSPA is still applicable there. The intelligence agencies there work as if they are working in an enemy territory. Besides, the cold-blooded murders, rapes and torture carried out by Indian army, its sheer presence in such a huge number terrorizes the Kashmiri people. The new generation of Kashmiris have grown up in the shadow of jackboots and gun butts and they view the presence of army as a sign of Indian occupation.
The Aspirations of Kashmiri People and the Future Possibilities
After the mass uprising in 2010, in which more than 100 people were killed, there was a lull in the movement. However, the 2010 uprising after the Shopian rape case and killing of a teenager Tufail Mattu and before that the 2008 uprising in the wake of Amarnath Yatra land acquisition controversy, had clearly indicated that the Azadi movement had entered a new phase of increasing mass participation. In those uprisings, the slogan of ‘India Go Back’ echoed the valley after a long time and since they were peaceful civil resistance, the Indian army had to face enormous challenges in crushing them. In these uprisings, the youth who were out on the street did not carry AK47 or hand grenade, rather they had stones in their hands. They were not dreaded militants of Hizbul Mujahideen or Lashkar-e-Toiba, rather ordinary youth, teenagers and women were part of these uprisings. Seeing the lull after the 2010 uprising, Indian media had started beating the drum of normalcy being returned to Kashmir valley. But as the mass protest after Handwara incident and the mass uprising after the killing of Burhan Wani shows, the alienation of Kashmiris from Indian state had continued to increase in the periods of lull. The increasing communalization and anti-Muslim bias of the military has further increased the alienation of Kashmiris. In the period of lull between 2011 and 2016, the alienation of people also increased due to the fact that the government continued to grab the land in Kashmir for projects such as staff quarters for Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and for Sainik colonies.6 The coming into power of the BJP government at the centre in the leadership of Narendra modi and the BJP-PDP alliance has resulted into further alienation of the Kashmir people which is as clear as day light in the aftermath of the 2016 uprising.
In this scenario, the question naturally arises that what lies ahead. The brutal repression, oppression and betrayal by Indian state in the last seven decades has only led to increasing alienation of Kashmiris and in turn their aspiration for Azadi has also gained strength in these years. However, the bitter truth is that no hope for fulfilling this aspiration is in sight. The most vocal advocate of the aspiration of Kashmiri people at this point of time is Hurriyat Conference. However, in the name of Azadi, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who represents the most radical faction of Hurriyat, desires Kashmir to become a part of Pakistan, a nation built on religious basis. Geelani cleverly keeps his plan of making Kashmir an Islamic state as unclear so that the majority of the Kashmiri people, influenced as they are from the Sufi stream of Islam, continue to view him as a leader of Kashmir’s Azadi than a pro-Pakistan leader. However, open Islamic fundamentalist stance of his lieutenants Masarrat Alam and Asia Andrabi makes it abundantly clear what his intentions are. While he portrays himself to be a tough leader vis-s-vis India, his bonhomie with the Pakistani leadership raises doubts on his credentials. He never speaks a word about the atrocities committed by Pakistan in the Pak-occupied Kashmir. At the same time, he blabbers on the question of the fate of Hindus and Sikhs of Jammu, Buddhists of Ladakh and Gujjar and Bakarwal tribes in the event of Kashmir being an Islamic state. Neither does he has any concrete policy for the resettlement of the Kashmiri Pundits in the valley. Clearly such a sectarian leadership only weakens the Kashmiri struggle.
However, as the 2016 mass uprising shows, even the separatist leaders like Geelani and Mirwaiz Omar Farooq no longer wield control over the unrest of Kashmiris. Earlier, Indian state was banking on these separatist leaders to calm down the anger of Kashmiris. But in this uprising, the so called separatist leaders, instead of leading the struggle, were actually following it. This time, the people were following their own calendars of protest rather than the one issued by the separatists. Clearly the element of spontaneity has increased in the Kashmiri struggle.
However,the future looks bleak. In the current era, the struggle of nationalities has weakened throughout the world. In no part of the world the bourgeoisie is so radical that it could win the battle of the self-determination. Even in Kashmir, looking at the might of Indian state, it is unlikely that the fight for self-determination could be won in the leadership of bourgeoisie. As we have seen above, large section of the Kashmiri bourgeoisie has been co-opted by Indian state in the process of this struggle. The section of petty bourgeoisie which claims to represent this struggle at this point, in its eagerness to plunge into the quagmire of Islamic fundamentalism, is actually weakening the struggle. However, the repression and oppression by Indian state will only lead to further alienation of Kashmiri people which would be expedited by the policies of communal Fascist government in New Delhi. The way in which the Kashmir issue has turned into a matter of prestige in the bourgeois politics of both India and Pakistan and the pace with which the militarization of the entire region is taking place, the hope for a resolution of the Kashmir dispute is nowhere in sight. This complex issue can be resolved only by a socialist government after the proletarian revolution which would prepare masses to be part of a socialist federation with the right to self-determination to all the nationalities including Kashmiris. However, we need not wait until the proletarian revolution. All those struggling for the proletarian revolution in India must try to forge unity with the struggle of Kashmiri people and try to convince them that only a socialist regime could grant them the right to self-determination and hence the struggles of the nationalities including that of Kashmir could succeed only by linking it with the working class struggle in India.
References:
1. “Address the ‘new normal’ in Kashmir”, M.K. Narayanan, The Hindu, October 10, 2016.
2. “Why Kashmir Is So Angry With Us”, Yashwant Sinha, NDTV, December 27, 2016
3. Kashmir Media Service
4. ‘The Kashmir Dispute’, A.G. Noorani
5. ibid.
6. “Kashmir: When Ignorance Begets Tragedy and Farce”, Gautam Navlakha, EPW, Vol. 51, Issue No. 32, 06 Aug, 2016.
