The army chief in a recent press conference stated a few facts, which merit further justification. His major comment included that ‘Azadi’ is not feasible and those who challenge the army or demand ‘Azadi’ will be fought against. Secondly, numbers of militants killed are irrelevant as others would join, ensuring that the cycle continues. Thirdly, the Indian army fights with its hands tied, as against other armies, including Syria and Pak, where air power is employed against their own people. Fourthly, acknowledging that the youth are angry, but resorting to stone throwing and disrupting operations is not the means of expressing anger, but inciting security forces to become aggressive.
Fifthly, if the youth want to help trapped militants, then they should volunteer to get them to surrender, rather than attacking those involved in operations. Sixthly, justifying the army’s approach, he stated that the army adopted a soft approach till mid-2016, but post the elimination of Burhan Wani, South Kashmir began to boil, and the army was targeted. This was also the time, when Pak and its supporters began spreading the message that ‘Azadi’ is close, further igniting fires. This forced the army to change as it had to establish the writ of the state.
Seventhly, he stated that a pure military approach is not the solution. It needs to be political with leaders moving into villages seeking to explain to the population that they are being misled. Finally, he was willing to suspend operations, provided the locals, political workers and soldiers were assured security from being targeted. He sought to project that continuing violence would impact the major industry of the state, tourism.
It is important to note that his comments were not a counter to the request pushed forward by the Chief Minister of seeking a ceasefire from Ramzan to the Amarnath Yatra. His interview just happened to be held on the same day. If read between the lines it is evident that he intended to spread the message that the army is not there to target or harass the local populace but for a task, which is battling those who challenge the authority of the state. Joining hands with terrorists, pelting stones or disrupting operations would invite the wrath of the army and lead to casualties.
His comments were countered by the separatists, which was expected. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq stated that the longings of the people of Kashmir ‘to be masters of their own fate is far stronger than any military power.’ JKLF Chairman Yasin Malik stated that the army chief’s remarks were illogical. It is these separatists, whose key role is to call for bandhs and violence, while remaining hidden, who incite the youth, pay them for throwing stones and offer fake condolences when they are killed.
They are aware of the reality that no nation, especially India, would ever permit a part to break away for any reason, as history has dictated. India fought the Naga and Mizo insurgency for decades, whose leaders finally realized that the only solution is through negotiations, which are almost complete. Bangladesh was created from Pak because of the might and support of the Indian army.
The Pak army neither has the capability nor the determination to even attempt the same. Within itself, Pak has used every element of force to crush rising protests and militancy in its North West. Therefore, ‘Azadi’ would only remain a pipedream, which would result in many more being killed challenging the might of the state. The reason why the separatists cannot voice the truth is the fact that their lifestyle is funded by Pak and many have their kith and kin based there. If they change their tone, they are likely to be eliminated.
The separatists and their supporters have begun resorting to glorifying local militants killed by the army. This results in motivating unemployed youth leading mundane lives into joining militancy with the dream of achieving some standing. Hence, the comment of the chief on not considering figures of killed militants. Most who join last a few days or weeks before they are eliminated. The glorification of Burhan Wani, locally by the separatists and internationally by Pak, was the reason for 110 youth joining militancy in the last two years. The truth that their endeavour is false and would result in nothing is kept hidden.
Troops involved in operations are focussed on the goal of eliminating terrorists. Attempts to thwart their efforts or distract their attention can lead to casualties. Hence, they would be compelled to retaliate. The army only employs small arms, not pellet guns, leading to deaths. If locals stay away from encounter sites, or bring forth surrenders, there would be lesser casualties.
It is known that military action alone is never the ultimate answer in resolving a crisis. The army assists the state by creating the right environment by reducing levels of militancy, permitting it to launch a political process to resolve issues which led to the rise of militancy. In Kashmir, this situation has been achieved on multiple occasions, but the state has not been able to proceed forward.
Finally, was the issue of a ceasefire. The army cannot on its own declare a ‘Non-initiation of Combat Operations’, a term used during Vajpayee’s time as Prime Minister for the ceasefire which was declared. It would not succeed as neither militants nor stone pelters would adhere to it. It would be a farce and if it fails, then the standing of the local government would be impacted. Hence, it would continue operations based on hard intelligence, however may reduce its movement and roadblocks. It cannot let the ascendency which it has at present recede.
The Chief wanted to convey that the army is not there to subjugate or harass, but to do a task of eliminating anti-national elements. Those who seek to support militants or challenge the army while it is performing its task, would have to pay the price. If the public views the army positively, the army would provide them support, security and an opportunity to grow. It is for the youth to now take a call.