By Bilal Ahmad Malik for TwoCircles.net
In one of my articles titled “A Political Struggle for Denied Rights” which I wrote for Greater Kashmir dated Sep 22, 2016, I had mentioned the importance of the idea of legitimacy and inspiration as far as the Kashmir problem is concerned. Here, in this article, I would like to start the discussion with the question of “Inspiration”. That is actually to examine, what keeps people of Kashmir, especially the Youth, regardless of the sufferings, persecutions and humiliations, committed to the Cause of Freedom. Is it the Historical and Political legitimacy- communicated through people and documented records- that rejuvenates them or it is the religious ideology that keeps them passionate about resistance against Occupation? Since the Kashmir issue is an outcome of decades-old conflict; therefore, it would be very simplistic to generalize the whole political situation while answering to this particular question. To approach this question and then to suggest some framework of action in order to contribute toward a peaceful settlement of the issue, one has to understand the trends and dynamics within the orbit of the problems in Kashmir. And, in case, these trends and dynamics-That have evolved over the years- are not recognised and calculated in the whole picture, the results would bring nothing positive except the bulk of faulty statements helping neither side of the equation- the State and the Society.
Today, we have different voices representing different political aspirations. For example, there are people who advocate the idea of a merger with Pakistan and there are people who voice for an Independent Kashmir. There are some who are willing to abide by the Constitution of India and there are some who support a Democratic Kashmir and, not ignore for a second, there are people who talk about establishing the Islamic Shari’ah in Kashmir. These are the major representations when it comes to questioning of classification based on political aspirations. However, there is one more classification based on the methodological construction to achieve the respective objectives. For those who support the Indian Constitution, engaging in mainstream politics- that accepts any solution but within the constitutional limits- is the only solution to the issue of Kashmir. And, for the rest-including all groups who want separation from India- there are fundamentally two operative methods to resist; the first one is to actively engage in the separatist politics through all means and ways which are democratic and non-violent, and the second one is to pick up the gun and participate in an armed struggle. Here, I will not mention about the recent trend of stone pelting as a separate method, because I believe it is not an organised or objectively framed movement, but rather a temporarily violent behaviour that primarily comes out as a reaction.
Now, coming back to the question of Inspiration, I will just focus on the Armed Struggle. Because it is the group that concerns me the most for two explicit reasons; the first reason is growing number of young, dynamic and educated youth picking up the guns and denouncing all other options and the second reason is growing number of armed youth getting killed on the name of encounters combating so-called terrorism. The question is, I will repeat, what makes them prefer death over life? What is the driving force that keeps them committed and never letting them have a second thought? I propose, as mentioned above, the possible answers could be two. It is either the historical and political legitimacy or the religious ideology that keeps the resistance sentiment alive. When we go into deeper analysis of the problem in the context of armed struggle the theory of historical and political legitimacy almost seems out of question except to be mentioned as a historical reference. And, it is the religious ideology that plays a very vital role. If we look at the recent recruitments, especially after land-row agitation of 2008, the only visible transformation is the shift towards religion both practically and symbolically- a psychological and ideological change to accept death in the way of Allah then to live under the state of kufr (disbelief). Thus, in such a situation it is a totally irrational argument to say Kashmiri youth are willing to get themselves killed just for the sake of political issue. And, if this is the ground reality, then the next question is why religion and does religion is incapable of giving other option than the emotionally-overwhelming idea of preferring life over death? This is really a serious discussion which needs involvement of both representations i,e. religious and political in order to come up with a relevant and meaningful answer.
Coming to the first question, in my assessment, I am deliberately using the word assessment to make it different from an opinion which is in a way more personal judgement; the religion of Islam- Kashmir being a practising Muslim majority society- is a natural option available to Kashmiri youth to justify the armed struggle. As a matter of fact, Islam does talk about solving a conflict by extending material and moral support to the oppressed against the oppressor. It categorically talks about fighting and killing when required to install the system of Justice and this is what the qital is all about. The Quranic persuasion, actually a potential order, “why don’t you fight for those who are Weak on Earth” is basically an emotional and psychological appeal that apparently seems relevant to the situation in Kashmir too. Therefore, the texts about jihad (which is actually broader in scope and doesn’t necessarily mean to “fight”) and qital (which is particularly related to fighting) are read and applied to the Kashmir problem by rationally putting India on the oppressor and Kashmiri Muslims on the oppressed side of the equation. And, then starts the whole story. A socio-political problem – of course having a religious and cultural basis as well, turns entirely into a religious problem and the line between religion and political gets blurred. The claim of Islam for establishing a system based on justice, equality and universal brotherhood, is observed as the only cure to miseries and sufferings of the Kashmiri people. Islam’s unequivocal and uncompromised stand against unjustified killings, violation of rights, acts of brutality and forcible occupation becomes a religiously sanctified voice for the youth (engaged in armed struggle) against Oppression and Injustice.
Now, coming to the second question, I outrightly refute the notion that Islam is not capable of giving other options except choosing armed resistance whenever Muslims have to stand against oppression and injustice. In the context of Kashmir, where Islam itself would allow a debate over the question of the legitimacy of the struggle, I will say other options are more effective in terms of communicating and strengthening the resistance movement. I will just make one important point here when about more than 99% of the population is willingly living under compromises, why quite strangely the armed struggle becomes the compulsory duty (fardh al’ayn) for the remaining less than 1%. It is totally irrational and, actually, they share double responsibility; firstly, to protect their lives in order to protect the life of resistance and secondly, to take out the 99% from the compromises which might prove harmful otherwise. I have read the juristic discussions- including both classical and modern- about jihad and qital and the conditions, principles and requirements to that effect. And, without any hesitation, I would say that Islam doesn’t tell its adherents to die a foolish death whatever the circumstances might be. Here, I must clarify that calling a death foolish isn’t an insulting tune, but rather an expression of grief over losing something precious without harvesting the benefits that it could have produced otherwise. On the contrary, Islam wants its adherents to live a productive and positive life so that the whole community takes maximum benefit from it. Islam recognises centrality and sanctity of life and appreciates its positive utilization for the betterment of both individual and society. It gives far more important to life than death.
Islam doesn’t accept death as a matter of choice until all means of life are cut-off and one is forced to accept death against his/her Will. Under such particular context- for example, the historical martyrdom of Imam Hussain- one can prefer death over life as a last resort which, actually, is a way to protect the very meaning and essence of life from the expected extreme kind of persecutions, tortures, and humiliations. But, in a situation where some other options relatively more productive than death are available to achieve the same objectives preferring death over life is simply a foolish way of dealing with the affairs. What Islam would tell us here, is that instead of over-glorifying the deaths for achieving nothing practically, we must clearly talk about the value of life and the good that could be accomplished through it. The fallacious argument of a large gathering in the funerals is an achievement itself is basically a simplistic understanding of the situation. This argument is more emotional and less religious. Because, if the Martyrdom, that is dying for the sake of Islam is not capable of changing the masses participating in funerals with all religious zeal to live for the sake of Islam then the very objective of Martyrdom has apparently failed. Since the concept of Martyrdom in Islam is not just an individual’s concern, therefore, it has to be seen in a community perspective. It has to do with the society and with the Muslim population of a particular community. So before accepting death over life one has to think, for hundred times, how much long-term benefits and how much good my life can bring to the society and does Islam allow me to consume my life for the compromised 99% who celebrate my death but ignore the message of my death for the sake of Islam.
I must say, on the basis of my personal observation, in most of the cases, accepting death for the short-term results has proven counter-productive. For example, a young and energetic religious scholar of my village namely Mufti Hilal Mazahari joined the armed struggle and accepted death over life for the sake of Islam. However, the work that he would do before death was really incredible. He would teach at many maktabs (part-time religious institutions). Alongside correcting their reading of the Quranic text, he would inculcate the ethical and moral values of Islam among his students. As a result of his hard work, many youths left drugs and alcohol, many repent of unethical practices and much-understood values of family and started respecting their family members. It started developing into a pious community which was, of course, a good sign for the society at large. However, after his martyrdom, everything started reversing. In his funeral thousands of youth participated but again when it comes to accepting the message of his martyrdom, that is to live by the moral and ethical standards of Islam, even his close students failed to preserve it.
In short, history is witness to the fact that no movement would sustain for a longer period of time if it doesn’t have the adequate human resource to work for persuasion, communication and mobilization of the objectives of the movement. The movement is bound to die its own death. Because, to do all that- persuasion, communication and mobilisation, the adequate human resources has to be visible in the society, interact with the masses, make them realise the state of plight they go through, give them knowledge of the objectives, organise them and guide them to follow a systematic method – in spite of all hardships- for a longer period of time. To put it another way around, the life is the life of the movement and death of life is the death of the movement.
(The author is Ph.D. research Scholar at Center of Central Asian Studies, University of Kashmir)