The violence in Kishtwar district of Jammu and Kashmir in which three people were killed, over 30 injured and at least 150 shops were torched has raised several questions about communalisation in the state. Ellora Puri, assistant professor of Political Science in the University of Jammu, who also edits the journal J&K Human Rights Perspective, speaks to Aabhas Sharma about the region's sensitive history and how the government could have dealt with the recent problem
There have been different versions of the events in Kishtwar. What led to the violence?
Yes, there is a lot of speculation and it's unclear what caused the trouble. Each side says that the other started it. The politicisation of the issue made the situation worse. Some people say that members of the procession which was heading towards the Eidgah grounds to offer prayers were shouting azadi slogans which prompted the Hindus to pelt them with stones. (A group of over 200 villagers are said to have reached Char Chinar Chowk when the stone pelting started. The situation deteriorated and gunfire followed). But what actually happened remains unclear.
How could this situation have been prevented?
Tell us a bit about the history of Kishtwar. Has it always been a communally sensitive area?
Kishtwar wasn't always divided on communal lines. It has a strong history of communal harmony. A Sufi saint (Hazrat Shah Farid-ud-Din Baghdadi) is said to have spread Islam in this area. His shrine is considered holy and worshiped with equal reverence by Hindus and Muslims.
Over the last 20-30 years, however, yes, it has become a sensitive place. Unlike the Kashmir Valley, Jammu region, of which Kishtwar is a part, has a very heterogenous population. In the case of Kishtwar, the population is more or less equally divided with nearly 55 per cent Muslims and 45 per cent Hindus.
When in the 1990s, militancy was on the rise, this was one of the first regions outside of the Kashmir Valley to be badly affected. Large-scale killings by non-state actors targeting one particular community didn't happen first in the Valley, but in this region. This resulted in communal polarization, which over a period of time was aggravated by actions and inactions of other non-state as well as state actors. Yet, despite tensions and communal clashes, Kishtwar continues to have a fairly large mixed population.
J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah said in his Independence Day Speech that the state has been given step-motherly treatment. Is that the general sentiment in the state?
If you're talking about the entire state, then you will get different answers. People of the Kashmir Valley will definitely complain of unfair treatment by the Centre. This sentiment is more pronounced in the youth--particularly the 1990s generation--which is now in its 20s.
In Jammu region, people feel that they have been given 'step-motherly' treatment by the Kashmiris, who dominate the socio-political set-up of the state. For instance, certain section argues that most of the Central grants, on which nearly 90 percent of J&K's economy runs, benefit the Kashmiris more so than the rest of the state. For someone like me, cultivating a syndrome of dependence, whereby the state is more or less run by Central doles, is in itself problematic, and symptomatic of asymmetric treatment.
So, it will be very difficult to generalise the 'general' sentiment of the state.
There have been different versions of the events in Kishtwar. What led to the violence?
Yes, there is a lot of speculation and it's unclear what caused the trouble. Each side says that the other started it. The politicisation of the issue made the situation worse. Some people say that members of the procession which was heading towards the Eidgah grounds to offer prayers were shouting azadi slogans which prompted the Hindus to pelt them with stones. (A group of over 200 villagers are said to have reached Char Chinar Chowk when the stone pelting started. The situation deteriorated and gunfire followed). But what actually happened remains unclear.
How could this situation have been prevented?
Also Read
There were apparently intelligence reports that such an incident was expected. If there were such reports, the government should have been more vigilant. There was very little security in the town that day. Considering that it was a festive occasion, bigger than normal crowds were expected. The state government is aware that in the last few months there have been such incidents across the region and it should have been more alert. It's also true that Kishtwar has had a bit of turbulent history as far as communal violence is concerned.
Tell us a bit about the history of Kishtwar. Has it always been a communally sensitive area?
Kishtwar wasn't always divided on communal lines. It has a strong history of communal harmony. A Sufi saint (Hazrat Shah Farid-ud-Din Baghdadi) is said to have spread Islam in this area. His shrine is considered holy and worshiped with equal reverence by Hindus and Muslims.
Over the last 20-30 years, however, yes, it has become a sensitive place. Unlike the Kashmir Valley, Jammu region, of which Kishtwar is a part, has a very heterogenous population. In the case of Kishtwar, the population is more or less equally divided with nearly 55 per cent Muslims and 45 per cent Hindus.
When in the 1990s, militancy was on the rise, this was one of the first regions outside of the Kashmir Valley to be badly affected. Large-scale killings by non-state actors targeting one particular community didn't happen first in the Valley, but in this region. This resulted in communal polarization, which over a period of time was aggravated by actions and inactions of other non-state as well as state actors. Yet, despite tensions and communal clashes, Kishtwar continues to have a fairly large mixed population.
J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah said in his Independence Day Speech that the state has been given step-motherly treatment. Is that the general sentiment in the state?
If you're talking about the entire state, then you will get different answers. People of the Kashmir Valley will definitely complain of unfair treatment by the Centre. This sentiment is more pronounced in the youth--particularly the 1990s generation--which is now in its 20s.
In Jammu region, people feel that they have been given 'step-motherly' treatment by the Kashmiris, who dominate the socio-political set-up of the state. For instance, certain section argues that most of the Central grants, on which nearly 90 percent of J&K's economy runs, benefit the Kashmiris more so than the rest of the state. For someone like me, cultivating a syndrome of dependence, whereby the state is more or less run by Central doles, is in itself problematic, and symptomatic of asymmetric treatment.
So, it will be very difficult to generalise the 'general' sentiment of the state.