More important than declarations are actions, such as making development for all possible and upholding the democratic rights of the citizens. But as soon as Narendra Modi led BJP came to power the political paradigm in India changed and the scholarly brigade of the BJP started to roll out their kind of terminology. It is not that the previous government was without a blemish, but the state of affairs was not as grave as it is now in India. The BJP brigade started to target the people on the basis of their eating behavior and even on holding ideas other than the BJP’s, as their politics spins around communalizing the society or in a way we can call it “radicalizing” the youth. In a recent statement given by INC’s Tom Vadakkan, on an NDTV show, he said that the “radicalization has become an industry”, and he was right in saying so, as it was the same industry which helped Modi in 2014 elections, and the same policy is functional post 2014 as well, be it killing people on the basis of eating beef or suffocating the right to freedom of expression and so on. For the people of India, who were expecting Acchay Din, the tables turned in such a way that they had to prove their nationalism in order to live in their own country. And those who refused to follow such fascist diktats were branded as anti-national and suggested to leave India. The reason and rationality were confronted by the delusion and delirium, which the Indian state, since inception, is executing in Kashmir.
In relation to the Kashmir, previously, such scholars had restricted the usage of the words of their glossary to “militants”, “sympathizers”, “extremists” and “separatists”, but now the inventory is being made non-exhaustive and the word “radicalized” is being used recurrently as, in an unprecedented experience, the unarmed youth of Kashmir are taking on the army at the encounter sites. This, for sure, depicts the love and affection of Kashmiris towards the militants and their cause and it also depicts their resilience. And why shouldn’t the youth pick up the arms and stones to wrestle the oppression, where a democratic deficit is symbolized and every democratic channel to dissent or contest is choked. That is what people do to fight tyranny and same was done by the Indian nationalists during British Raj. There were the people who the British used to address as extremists, and yes no one has forgot the Mutiny of 1857. Were they all radicalized? The Indian regime in Jammu and Kashmir provoke the violence by committing grave offences which are obscured with greater violence, which also has become an industry, and this supplements the hatred towards the Indian state. In Kashmir the so called security forces are trigger happy and the Indian state always remains dedicated to divert the attention from their misconduct, which leaves the “rule of law” in shreds. It is a fact, defended by the Amnesty and other human rights organizations, that the internationally recognized human rights are grossly violated in Kashmir and even the constitutionally guaranteed rights is a sham here. Domestic and international laws are not just prescribed cliché systems, but the general meaning and implications are clear enough and Indian state has not even shown a bit of decency towards either one.
The rhetorical frameworks which are a “durable” and “crucial” of Indian diplomacy with respect to the Kashmir inherited and convoluted by the succeeding legion of Indian statesmen which fundamentally remains unchanged over the time has again been rejuvenated, whereby the Indian intellectuals are promulgating and emphasizing on the “radicalization”, as well as are trying to create a binary around the words “educated” and “unemployment“, and is one of the frameworks under which the Indian state is attempting to obfuscate the real issues related to the Kashmir. The youth of Kashmir either educated or uneducated is well aware of the facts, the conflict and the situation in Kashmir, where the word conflict is a common euphemism for India’s aggression. The Kashmiri youth do know about the mass graves, the people who disappeared in thin air, and the rapes that were committed to suppress the dissenting voices, which is not abstract. The youth do not need to get acquainted with sufferings which the Kashmiris have put up with, and the present course of joining militant ranks is more of an “action-reaction” binary. The fact remains that the dictionary of the Indian intellectuals is trying to distort the meaning of the word “radicalization”, in relation to Kashmir, in a pretty euphemistic manner. Indian state also needs to understand the fact that the education exposes a person to the realm of understanding and becoming conscious about the reality, which has served its purpose in the Jammu and Kashmir as well. And for the sake of argument if it is taken that the educated youth prefer gun and stones over a secure career, then India needs to ponder, why? By labeling the educated youth of the valley as “radicalized”, the Indian state is trying to portray the youth as the economically frustrated lot and is trying to center the issue on the economic facet, which outrightly needs to be dismissed. The concept is repeatedly deployed to justify the destruction of peace and to impose the puppet regimes in order to guarantee the stability.
Furthermore, the another framework Indian state is attempting to create is the phrase “law and order situation” and by saying that the Kashmir issue is nothing more than a law and order problem, depicts either the non-serious attitude of Indian state towards solving the Kashmir dispute or the lack of understanding the dispute itself. In order to make a good understanding of the term “law and order situation” the government of India needs to analyze the recent events in Haryana or the Patel agitation in Gujarat and compare the standard operational procedures, in relation to Kashmir, with which both the disturbances were dealt with. There has been an effect: some people are synchronized to this propaganda. But none of this has ever conceived the intended objects in past neither will it serve the purpose at present or in future. It is very hard to subsist with cognitive dissonance: only a true skeptic can trust in one thing and do/say another.