Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai
Nel Noddings, eminent American educationalist wrote in Peace Education: How We Come to Love and Hate War that “Gandhi, convinced of the power of Satyagraha, suggested that it be used by the Jews against the Nazis. In response, Martin Buber – who had earlier (1930) written that much could be learned from Gandhi – said that this method could not be used against the Nazis. It is one thing to use nonviolent methods against those who would deprive you of some material benefit, but if their basic aim is to deprive you of life itself, how can you resist nonviolently?â€Occupiers are not all alike, of course. After all, Britishers were very sensitive to human rights and felt that bloodshed and killing of innocent lives is not an option and they withdrew from British India. What does this mean in the context of the Kashmir dispute? We have a different problem with India. Constant and consistent non-violent protests in Kashmir obviously has had little visible effect in moving the discussion toward the hope of Kashmiris, which is self-determination. The fundamental issues involved in the conflict remain just as they were 70 years ago. To whom does Kashmir belong? Who has a right to rule Kashmir? Why has India become a colonist just as the British were more than 70 years ago? And why is Indian army so brutal with Kashmiris in their repression? It has become rather clear that India has little regard for the lives of Kashmiris. In Kashmir, India has legalized methods of torture and killing to give total immunity to its occupational forces. When those who protest are simply shot down or maimed for life, this is a clear message that Kashmir is to India a land occupied not by its own, or those for whom it has affection and wishes to include in its family, but rather by a hostile people who perhaps do not or should not belong there. To India, Kashmiri are simply terrorists, the whole lot of them. Kashmir is to India, an integral part of it, it is often stated. Those who do not see themselves as Indians need to go somewhere else or they will be killed. Such is the overall effect that such a policy has. The failure to include “the people†of Kashmir in the meaning of “Kashmir†runs completely counter to the need to achieve peace and sends a very clear message that India’s presence is meant to crush, subdue, and tame, if not obliterate any opposition. It is apparent that they are greedy for the land, for the status of possessing this ‘Jewel of the Himalayas,’ ‘Paradise on Earth’ ‘Switzerland of Asia’ and have no concern for its people. Here is an apparent example of the height of abhorrence of Indian leadership towards the people of Kashmir. When a 26-year old Kashmiri youth, Farooq Ahmed Dar was tied (April 15, 2017) in front of the army jeep to use as a human shield, Ram Madhav, Secretary General of BJP (the ruling party of India) did not hesitate to justify it by saying, “In war and love, everything is fair.â€â€œIf man were infinitely malleable,†Eric Fromm, German Psychologist wrote, “there would have been no revolutions; there would have been no change because a culture would have succeeded in making man submit to its patterns without resistance. But man, being only relatively malleable, has always reacted with protest against conditions which made the disequilibrium between the social order and his human needs too drastic or unbearable. The attempt to reduce this disequilibrium and the need to establish a more acceptable and desirable solution is at the very core of the dynamism of the evolution of man in history. Man’s protest arose not only because of material suffering; specifically human needs…are an equally strong motivation for revolution and the dynamics of change.†Obviously, when the people want to seek freedom from an occupation, they have to resist. Resistance takes different forms and shapes according to the circumstances. Some do resist openly while others prefer tacit support of the resistance movement though their ultimate objective is the same.-
