Kashmir is going through a crisis, where lives and livelihoods are endangered.
Given the toll in the last few months – lives lost, inflicted disabilities, suppressive crackdowns, protracted curfews – the Hurriyat (G) may have a moral right to go ahead with protests. It is also in their right to call for a settlement of the long pending Kashmir dispute, which has been taking a toll on the people every now and then.
However, the calendar of protests issued by the separatist conglomerate, which are running into its third consecutive month raises vital questions on its viability and sustainability in the long run. They may argue that their programmes, which essentially comprise of prolonged shutdowns, are strictly followed and are thus justified. But it does not need an economist to tell that three months of continuous shutdowns not only dents the economy but also brings the poorer section of the society on the brink of starvation. A couple of breaks in the shutdown calendars supposedly meant for shopping do not serve the poor. In fact for the people who get no days to earn, a shopping day is nothing more than a joke. The middleclass and the rich, the entrepreneurs and the transporters, are equally hit.
The separatist leadership is, apparently, taking up a people’s cause. Their goals are very close to many hearts. Their demand for Azadi or self determination is too huge to be realized in a few weeks or even months or even years. They have been vying for it from past so many decades and it may take many more.
In wars between nations it is generally observed that sieges are imposed on rivals to squeeze and strain their resources so as to crumble their ability to fight. A state imposing long curfews on a dissenting population follows the same logic. The policy has always been to tire out people so that they can be forced into despondency. By that logic a group or leadership supposedly taking up people’s movement has to guard its people from those very suppressive measures. It has to protect its resources and cannot afford to constrain those very resources.
It is in the interest of people and their leaders to protect their livelihoods. It will be in the interest of the people and their sentiment to draw up, if they may, a protest programme which does not deprive their right to basic livelihoods and amenities. For that matter even education.
