Video Editor: Nitin Bisht
"Look at the reaction on so-called 'mainstream media'. Isn't that a part of collective punishment? Stereotyping Kashmiris — every Kashmiri is involved — that is the headline on every mainstream media, saying that it wouldn't have happened without the involvement of all Kashmiris. Kashmiris ko sabak sikhao, Kashmiris ko boycott karo. Kashmiri jahan bhi dikhe, unki pitai karo," said Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi, Lok Sabha MP from Srinagar
Days following the Pahalgam attack that claimed the lives of 26 innocent civilians, incidents of violence against Kashmiri students, Muslim vendors, and workers in other parts of the country have been widely reported. The government, meanwhile, continues to carry out widespread crackdowns, with reports of over 2,000 arrests across the Valley.
Condemning the Pahalgam attack, Mehdi said: "If terrorism has a religion, some months ago, four innocent Muslims were identified in a train in Rajasthan in the same manner, lined up and then killed for being Muslims. So, what's the answer there? Does this standard apply there? I say no."
On this episode of 'Badi Badi Baatein', the J&K National Conference leader speaks on the immediate and long-term fallout of the Pahalgam attack, the discrimination against Kashmiris since 22 April, and the concerns around Centre's claims of security since Abrogation of Article 370.
Mr. Mehdi, I'm going to begin by asking you a very personal question. I'm not asking this to you as a politician or I'm not asking this to you as an MP, but as a Kashmiri, how did it make you feel as someone who has seen Kashmir and its history all along?
We have seen violence for the last 35 years, but it was shocking for us. I don't know whether you can grasp what Kashmiris felt. The society which has a habit of witnessing violence, which has developed, unfortunately, a habit of witnessing violence because of the circumstances, still finds an incident shocking and gruesome for them.
And it was shaking. The shock and the depression that took over were unprecedented. No one was expecting this. No one ever thought that this violence would come in such shape because we are told that the victims were identified, lined up, and killed in cold blood. And that is something the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and Kashmir in particular, were shocked to hear and is unacceptable to them. And we could feel what the families must have gone through.
We in Kashmir have been the victims of terrorism. My family and I have been victims of terrorism. My father was assassinated in an IED blast—thousands of such examples. Somehow, every Kashmiri could relate to the sense of loss those families, that sense of helplessness those families must have gone through. And you could gauge this. You can sense this sentiment from the reaction of the people of Kashmir, who came on the streets against this act of violence and called it an act of terrorism and an inhuman act of terrorism.
There is no doubt in the fact that terrorists asked about the religion of the victims before shooting them down. But something like that in the atmosphere that we live in has led to the divisive ideologies further pushing this narrative that terrorism does have a religion. How do you respond to this narrative that is being pushed?
One of the objectives of this act of terrorism for those terrorists would be to inflict a communal divide in this society. And if we get into that trap, it's a victory for them. It's not a victory for the victims. So, it's for us to decide whose purpose we serve. If terrorism has a religion, some months ago, four innocent Muslims were identified in a train in Rajasthan in the same manner, lined up and then killed for being Muslims. So, what's the answer there? Does this standard apply there? I say no, because we know that was a fringe. It was an animal. He was a mad guy, fringe and extremist.
He does not represent the entire Hindu society. And what is the answer when we have examples of people who were lynched, and before lynching them, they were asked to give the slogan of Jai Shri Ram? Once they refused, they were killed, lynched. Do we apply the same standard there? No, it's not the case. We reject terrorism in any shape or form.
There is a fringe in every religion and society, as I mentioned in the examples I quoted. We do not stereotype the entire Hindu population for the act of that mad guy in that train, for the act of those mad men who lynched Muslims. And we have many examples of that. And we do not stereotype Muslims for the acts of these animals.
And what is the answer for Syed Adil Hussain Shah? What's your answer for him? He was also a Muslim who gave his life in the same act of terror in defence of these victims. A few months ago, or last October, the same act of terrorism was carried out in Sonmarg on a construction site of a tunnel where the same kind of terrorists came and lined up the workers there.
And those workers happened to be Muslims, but they killed them, local Muslim engineers, doctors, and labourers. What's the answer for them? So, it's convenient for right-wing ideology to pick up religion in such incidents. But for those who want to defeat the idea of terrorism, we do not find religion in these acts of terrorism, be it a train in Rajasthan or the incident in Pahalgam.
But that is exactly what we are witnessing across the country. The terrorists, to an extent, have been able to achieve exactly what they came to achieve, which is dividing the country further and widening the divide that already exists between Hindus and Muslims in this country. We are seeing videos of how shopkeepers are being thrashed.
We are seeing videos of how Kashmiri students are being evicted from their homes, from their hostels. We recently saw a video of shawl vendors from Kashmir being assaulted in Mussoorie. There are lots of such reports and incidents coming from across the country. How do you look at these videos, this virality, this blatant amount of hate-mongering that is going on in the country, on social media, everywhere?
As I said in the response to the first question, the incidents that you quoted unfortunately serve the purpose of those terrorists. And unfortunately, we are caught between the two right wings, the two extremists on either side. They control our lives. They control our narratives. They shape our future. One animal decided to carry out an act of terrorism and kill innocents.
And the other extreme chooses the incident to create an opportunity for them to further their agenda of communalism. And in the process, innocents are being hurt. The ideologies of those who were in control in Pahalgam are extreme ideologies that people like us reject. And on the other side, the ideology that's in control, who's trying to communalise the entire nation based on this incident, is an extremist ideology. We need to stand. We need to find an answer to this.
What is the answer to those people who gave their lives for the idea of this nation? People like me, my father was assassinated in an IED blast by the same terrorism. Thousands of such examples in Kashmir, from police, from security forces, Muslim Kashmiris, those who gave their lives: Innocents, political activists, social activists, and lawyers.
There is a lot of anger across the country, naturally so. But one of the general sentiments right now is that we need a strong retaliation against Pakistan. Do you support any kind of military escalation against Pakistan?
We in Kashmir say, whatever you decide, if that brings justice, number one, and permanent peace to this nation and this place, particularly Kashmir, we are for that. We, the people of Kashmir, are not asked how to shape the peace, how to shape the future. Why do you pick up Kashmiris conveniently in the times of war or crisis and tell them to shape whatever future course we want to shape or stand for or speak for this? We have no say in shaping the future of this place. How are we expected to make opinions or give suggestions? Our humble suggestion is that whatever nation decides, it is an urge for justice, and any method it chooses to seek justice for these innocents, the nation, and the people of Jammu and Kashmir, we stand by that.
You tweeted the other day that there is collective punishment for Kashmir and Kashmiris. Would you want to elaborate on that?
In the aftermath of this event, more than 2,000 people were reportedly arrested and unreported, as the family members and the villagers say and report, more than 3,000 people in Kashmir have been arrested. Street vendors on the streets of different parts of India, those who belong to Kashmiri, have been beaten up, attacked, stereotyped, and called terrorists. Students have been attacked in the colleges and the hostels. They had to leave the streets. Vendors had to leave the business. They had come back in search of safety and security.
Isn't that a collective punishment? Houses were demolished in blasts. Houses of suspects not convicted. You blasted the houses of suspects, one can understand. How about blasting the houses of the neighbours of suspects and relatives of suspects? Mothers aged 60 years who have lived in Kashmir for a long time before this insurgency started, unfortunately, they came from across the line, but were married, legally married, have been told, who have no kith and kin across, their entire life belongs to this place, have been told to leave Kashmir.
Look at the reaction on 'mainstream media'. Isn't that the part of collective punishment? Stereotyping Kashmiris. Every Kashmiri is involved. That is the headline on every 'mainstream media.' Without the involvement of all Kashmiris, it wouldn't have happened. "Kashmiris ko lesson sikhao, Kashmiris ko boycott karo. Kashmiri jahan bhi dikhe, unki pitai karo."
The atmosphere is being made so vicious for Kashmiris by the mainstream media. And look at the right-wing social media, where there is a vicious atmosphere for Kashmiris. Isn't it a collective punishment on different levels? Do you want Kashmir or do you want Kashmiris? This nation has to decide. If this is a fight for Kashmiris, then the behaviour is not helping the cause. If the fight is for the land of Kashmir, then it's fine.
Whatever crackdown that you mentioned, many have expressed that it has the potential to further alienate the people of Kashmir from the administration. Do you think that is something which is a pattern that is going to repeat after an attack like this?
See, keep this record for austerity and for something in the future. You asked me this question, and I will give you a sane answer, understanding the situation. And right-wing will one day conveniently pick that answer and code that as a threat. He threatened the nation and he threatened the country.
He's a terrorist. My sane answer would be understanding the dynamics on the ground. Yes, this helps the alienation. This will alienate the people from the nation, from the authorities or whatever name you want to give this. This is counterproductive. This will come back to haunt us. And when we speak of sanity, when we speak of human approach, when we speak of logic, it's then used as anti-national, it's used as threats. The reaction to this terror attack was very organic. People came out on the streets demonstrating against, protesting against this act of terrorism.
There were loudspeakers in the mosques through which the announcements were made, rejecting these acts of violence and asking people to organise themselves and come out and speak against this act of terrorism. But unfortunately, instead of embracing that sentiment and then building upon that sentiment, the establishment chose to give a collective punishment to the people of Kashmir and further alienate them.
To an extent, tourism had gradually risen in the valley over the past few years. In a place like Jammu and Kashmir, which is gripped with the country's highest unemployment rate, tourism brought a certain amount of work for people. It brought food to the tables of local Kashmiris. Now, after this attack, naturally, a lot of people are saying that we have gone 10 years behind in the way people had started warming up to the valley.
And again, the questions have started cropping up in people's minds: 'Ki kyu jaane Kashmir ghumne?' How far-reaching do you think these repercussions are, not just financial but also social, on the people of Kashmir? Because tourist sites are already being shut down. We are already seeing 50 tourist sites being shut, and more are to come. How do you see the repercussions? How far do you see them going?
We, the people of Kashmir, wouldn't even want to speak about the economic aspect of this. We don't care about the economy. And we have seen the rise and fall in tourism for the last 35 years. It will hurt tourism. It will hurt the economy. There's no doubt about that.
But that's not the concern of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The concern is the reaction of the nation vis-à-vis the people of Kashmir. The level to which the people of Kashmir are being dehumanised. The stereotyping and criminalising of the identity that's called a Kashmiri identity. That's going to have far-reaching consequences.
And as I said, the reaction that the people of Kashmir came with after this incident was the human loss that they felt, the human sentiment, the human connection that they felt with these innocent victims. The identity of a Kashmiri and a Kashmiri Muslim is dehumanised to such an extent that it will take years to fix that, and for a Kashmiri to live a normal life in the rest of the country.
Victims' Families have said there was no security at a tourist spot like that. There are larger questions that are being asked about how terrorists from Pakistan were able to enter the territory and execute this entire attack. There's a lot of debate about alleged security failures and alleged intelligence failures. Where do you stand in this entire debate?
Another question where we feel like speaking, but we know we'll be criminalised. There's a huge security lapse, and Kashmiris will not be allowed to speak on that, to reflect that truth or to question that security lapse. And especially when Kashmiris were told that you'll have nothing to do with the security of the place in 2019, and we'll control the security and let us show how security is controlled.
We'll remove, we'll abrogate Article 370, statehood, every right that you had, and we'll control the place ourselves. We'll show the entire nation how militancy, terrorism and violence vanish from the state, from Kashmir. It's been five to six years now, and you have had multiple incidents of violence, and this was the most gruesome. And who is in control? And that's what they bragged about. There's no militancy, there's no terrorism, it was remote. Who is to answer today? A place which is sensitive already. It's en route to Amarnath Yatra. It's always sensitive.
No one here is able to buy the argument that the meadows and the jungles were unguarded. And especially when a US dignitary is visiting India. And this place has a history. Whenever US dignitaries like Bill Clinton visited, other dignitaries visited, and terrorists would carry out these kinds of acts to grab the attention of the global media. Even a police constable moves with the orders of the Union Home Minister.
But do you think an attack like this only gives the government the means to justify the abrogation of Article 370 more strongly?
It should have taken away the justification for the abrogation of 370. In a normal functioning democracy and a normal just world, they should have been questioned, their moves should have been questioned. Because they claim that the removal of 370 will bring an end to militancy. It didn't. We have been saying that 370 has nothing to do with militancy.
If anything, 370 is an argument against separation and militancy. 370 talks about integration with India, the constitution of India, and the idea of India against extremism. So, these incidents for the last 4-5 years stand as a testament to the fact that it was a fallacy. It was a political agenda and propaganda of the BJP that 370 and the abrogation of 370 would end these things.
Chief Minister Omar Abdullah said he does not have a face left after this attack to ask for statehood. Is that going to be the general party line? Will the national conference take a back foot on fighting for statehood?
No, I believe he meant for that moment, that particular day when the session was called in the assembly and rightly so because the session was called for the obituary and against the act of terrorism, obituary for the victims and he said I will not use this moment to speak for the return of statehood. That moment, that day was not for politics, and that day was not to speak for the return of statehood.
But if anything, it gives strength to our resolve that the people of J&K need to have their rights and control of the place back, as any other state has. Not only statehood but also the entire package of 370 and the autonomy that had been given to the people of J&K.
There is a lot of criticism that usually comes the way of the national media whenever an incident like this happens. What's your take on how the media has covered the Pahalgam attacks?
Part of the media for the last 10 years that you quoted has been irresponsible. It has lost that credibility to be called the media. It's a propaganda window for a particular ideology. It parrots the lines and war cries of that particular ideology or helps to hide the failures of this government and this regime. It shaves the narrative in a way that the attention of the nation is diverted, and the questions are not asked.
Questions about the government's failures and the nation's state are not asked; it diverts and is nothing new. I understand that it's from the handbook of Hitler's regime, how his regime managed the headlines, the news and the propaganda. It's exactly what's happening on these 'news channels.' They are not news channels.