While the legal charge against the Kashmiri students was not sustainable, unless they were separately accused of vandalism and violence, there can be other arguments against them. But television and Twitter missed the debate
Between them, the blood sport on Twitter and the khap panchayats on prime-time news television make nuance and complex positions difficult to articulate. Yet, not everything and not every issue can be explained away in binary, black-and-white, good-or-bad terms. Sometimes it is possible to disagree with both the so-called victims and assailants in a particular situation and not necessarily look for heroes and villains.
An example of this arose recently when 67 Kashmiri students were suspended by their university in Meerut, western Uttar Pradesh, and sent home for a short period. This followed campus unrest that had begun with the students cheering for the Pakistani team as it played and defeated the Indian team in a cricket match. Reports on what happened after that were unclear. It was alleged that violence had taken place, some of it occurring because non-Kashmiri students opposed to the cheering had protested and some of it taking place because a bunch of Kashmiri students had turned unruly and destroyed property.
The university authorities tried to isolate the trouble-makers but were unable to identify them as the 67 students stayed united and stayed silent. In their wisdom, the university authorities felt it was best to send all the students home till tempers cooled and till the chances of escalating violence had receded. The State Government went to a bizarre extreme by not just charging the students with disturbing the peace — which some of them may have done by resorting to vandalism — but also charging them with sedition for the act of cheering for Pakistan.
The debate that followed touched upon several themes — the loyalty that Kashmiri Muslims may or may not feel — and to some minds must or must not feel — for India; the sporting spirit that should allow us to de-link sport from politics; the ham-handed approach of the Uttar Pradesh Government and the ridiculous sedition charge; the unfairness of the Indian state when it comes to residents of the Kashmir valley.
All of these were elements of a larger phenomenon. Nevertheless, it was convenient not to see them as elements but to see them — or see the one element of your choice — as the entirety of the phenomenon. As such, either the Kashmiri students were thugs who were betraying India — or they were hapless lovers of cricket who were being punished by a jingoistic mindset. Which is trueIJ Is eitherIJ Are both, but only up to a degreeIJ
let us begin with two points that should be beyond contention. First, it is perfectly in order to cheer for another team or another country’s team while watching a match or a tournament. Second, the charge of sedition was overdone and unnecessary. Sedition itself is a decidedly blockbuster expression that has been used and misused by Governments through history. A sedition charge is rarely if ever justified, and absolutely not so in case of backing a rival cricket team.
While the legal charge against the Kashmiri students was not sustainable — unless they were separately accused of vandalism and violence — is there no legal or social argument against them eitherIJ This is a question the debates on television and Twitter failed to address. For example, is there a difference between cheering a Pakistani (or an English or an Australian) cricket team and explicitly opposing an Indian team with the express idea of provoking Indians in the roomIJ That second action does not merit police or legal action, must less a sedition law — but it is different from innocent love of a rival sports team.
So what if the students cheered Pakistan and actively opposed the Indian team, it may be contendedIJ Is this not representative of the sentiment in the Kashmir valleyIJ Is it not a social reality that cannot be wished away and in many senses a product of historical grievanceIJ Is it not the result of New Delhi — of successive Governments here, and of the Indian state — being unfair to Muslims of the valleyIJ
Again all of these are true. It is also true, however, that the Kashmiri students were in Meerut, guests as it were in another part of the country — or even in another country, should they consider Kashmir a separate nation. Was it correct on their part to behave with deliberate provocationIJ Did they have a responsibility to their institution and their host communityIJ Meerut and western Uttar Pradesh have a combustible social and religious history. What if a larger riot had broken outIJ The students would then have been sent home to Srinagar and the valley — but may have left behind a troubled landscape in Meerut and Uttar Pradesh, with local people — non-Kashmiris, Hindus and Muslims — suffering. Can these questions not be raised and can the prudence and judgement of the Kashmiri students not be questioned — not by recourse to legal clauses but as a matter of social and political interrogationIJ
At best, the students can be accused to immaturity. At worst, they can be seen as hypocritical. After all, how do you square not just an identification with Pakistan but an energetic dislike of and opposition to India — with studying in an Indian university, one located outside KashmirIJ Unfortunately, this hypocrisy is something the Kashmiri separatist elite and social leadership has come to live with and never bothered to explain, even to itself. It has created an entitlement mentality of a peculiar sort.
Some years ago, the Government of India made an assessment of the wealth and investments of leaders of the All-Party Hurriyat Conference. Some of these people, leading religious and political figures in the valley, argue for Kashmiri separateness and even merger with Pakistan. Many of them are remarkably well off — making money with the usual mix of methods, and from the usual mix of sources, on offer to politicians in the Indian subcontinent. It was found that severalhigh-profile functionaries of the Hurriyat were investing in property not just in Jammu and Kashmir but deep in southern India, in the then booming cities of Hyderabad and Bangalore, urban agglomerations of the new Indian economy.
The Hurriyat leaders were not buying homes or shops or office space in Peshawar and Quetta. Whatever their rhetoric, they were not preparing for a life beyond India. In some ways, this represented a triumph for India and for the idea that a growing Indian economy was the best guarantor of peace and stability, and of Kashmiris — or Pakistanis for that matter — settling into the belief that being associated with the Indian economy was always the better option and moving away from it would achieve little.
This recognition called for (and still calls for) enlightenment on the part of Indian policymakers. Does it not need to be complemented with a quantum of grace and clarity by Kashmiri societyIJ Those students are not answerable to the law. They could consider, however, having an honest chat with themselves.
malikashok@gmail.com