Why not to go the Chinese way on the Arundhati Roy issue

The recent statements by Syed Ali Shah Geelani, leader of separatist Kashmiri group Hurriyat and author Arundhati Roy about Kashmiri independence have raised a political storm in New Delhi. Several political parties and members of media have called out for arrests of these leaders on the charges of treason. Consequently there continues a constitutional debate in the country for the legality of their arrests.

Although the Delhi Police has been given a go-ahead to file charges against the leaders, it remains to be seen whether the arrests will actually be carried out. The government continues to refuse from committing itself to either side. While there is strong sentiments in New Delhi to appease, arrest of Geelani may lead to revived political protests in Kashmir and arrest of Roy may invite international criticism.

An interesting parallel is the recent drama that went on in China about Liu Xiabo who is the Nobel Peace Prize winner this year and currently under house-arrest in China. Immediately after the announcement of the prize, the Chinese led a major crackdown on internet erasing the news, arranged for a political hit-job on his character and rebuked Nobel prize committee for daring to give him the prize.

These are the reasons why we should not adopt the same model here at home:

1. International criticism not cool for a country trying to spit polish its Democracy medallions in a region full of dictatorships and communism.

2. Something called free speech as a constitutional right.

3. The fact that such statements from time-to-time are important to be made. Our government, like any other government, is not very effective in taking initiatives. It is only by forcing the government, by making big hue and cry that you can force any government to bring in reforms and I hope no one will disagree that we need reforms in Kashmir. I do not agree with Roy but I disagree with her arrest as well.

Someone just pointed out that I should be last person to cry free speech since I am in everyone's face who doesn't agree with me. But I do it for free, as an individual. The government is also free to do so, by bashing Roy through public statements. But arresting her would be crossing a line that I am really hoping we would not.

Again, I am saying Roy is an idiot who made an incorrect statement and she probably has no idea about the real situation in Kashmir. But that doesn't mean you should arrest her.

Image: Arundhati Roy, Liu Xiabo

Image credit: Jeanbaptisteparis, Voice of America

Update: Kashmir Reconciliation Package

After putting up the Kashmir post, I asked Suba Chandran of Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (and my former boss) to give me some feedback on the reconciliation package. Always one step ahead, he has already written a detailed paper on the issue, which covers far beyond what I had talked about.

The main point to take home from his paper is the idea that the current policy that New Delhi has on Kashmir is to have no policy. "[T]he calculation today in New Delhi is, perhaps, that this round of violence will also subside. So sit tight. Do Nothing. Violence will go down automatically." Although the vagueness of the reconciliation package may be due to the fact that it is a skeleton structure for future development, it may very well be motivated by the policy of no policy.

Chandran argues that such attitude towards Kashmir will be harmful in the long run. Instead he gives a brief plan of creating consensus in India and Kashmir reach an effective solution to this problem.

What is the government's reconciliation package to Kashmir?

I am confused. On Saturday, the government announced a eight-point reconciliation package for Kashmir to pacify the protests (for the Ministry of Home Affairs Press Release see this). For the past couple of days, I was hoping some expert on Kashmir will give his opinions in some newspaper or the other about the package, but nothing substantial has turned up. And the package seems to give nothing special to the Kashmiris. I am confused as to if the package is actually a political settlement (even a minor one) or not.

The package gives Kashmir the following:

- Review deployment of the security forces (that is moving check posts, de-scaling bunkers etc. from some parts of Kashmir).

- Setting up a group of interlocutors to hold talks with political parties, youth and members of the civil society.

- The state government will review the notification of places in the Valley as disturbed areas, "a decision that could impact the contentious Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), dilution or total withdrawal of which parts of the Valley is a longstanding demand of separatists and even of Omar Abdullah," says Deccan Herald.

- State government to withdraw charges against the students detained in the protests since June this year.

- Lifting of the curfew that has been in place for the last three months.

Now, the last two points just turn the clock back for a few months and revert to the status quo. Setting up a group to hold talks is not exactly confidence-inducing given the track record of the Indian Government. The significant points of the package are review of the deployment and possible dilution of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). The review of deployment will be in consultation with the Unified Command. I can't imagine that in a committee dominated by Army and Paramilitary forces there will be many changes in the deployment structure. If history is any measure to go by, generals are always reluctant to give up any ground, considering all their deployments as indispensable.

The only significant aspect that remains is the review of "disturbed areas". According to AFSPA, which is one of the most draconian laws our government has ever passed, in a region declared as "disturbed area" armed forces have extraordinary powers. The right to declare an area disturbed lies with the central government and the state governor, however the central government can always overrule the state. The package allows state government to review these disturbed areas and recommend central government to change some of them. It seems unlikely that entire Kashmir will be declassified as a "disturbed area." If the government only removes the label from a few small parts of the state, would that make a major difference?

So is this reconciliation package just eyewash, reversion to the old status quo? As I said, I am confused.

PS: An idea that I really liked was setting up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission suggested by Prof Amitabh Mattoo. As he says, "A commission like this is not about fixing blame, but about accepting the tragic events of the past, bringing the past to a closure and moving together into a better future. It is about recognising the tragedy of two decades, of those who disappeared or who were killed, or the tragic displacement of Kashmiri Pandits."