The continuing communication restrictions in Kashmir have only deepened alienation

Exactly a month ago, Jammu and Kashmir lost its special constitutional status, and its status as a State, through a dubious and hurried process. Ahead of that decision that could rankle for years to come, the region, particularly the Kashmir Valley was put under a lockdown with all communication cut and movement of people severely restricted. One month on, the Valley continues to be under severe restrictions; the death of a teenage protester on Wednesday who was injured earlier may further delay the administration’s plans to withdraw the clampdown. Communication networks in the Jammu region of the newly created Union Territory have been substantially restored and the Ladakh UT, carved out of the erstwhile State, has not seen disruptions. Prominent newspapers published from Srinagar, discontinued for several days, have resumed publication. Mobile phones and the Internet are not back in operation and schools, though reopened, have sparse attendance in Kashmir. It took a while before the Kashmiris learned about the lightning changes that had been imposed upon them. But a mood of triumphalism is evident across the country, which is resistant to an informed and tempered national discussion on the changed status of J&K. Reports of protests and police action from the Valley have largely been dismissed by the Centre.

The revocation of the special status of J&K has the support of the majority of the political community outside the Valley, although the decision is under judicial review. The government and other supporters of the move continue to argue that the people in Kashmir have been freed from the political families that held power at their cost, that investments will flow in, jobs will multiply, women will get equal status as men in terms of inheritance and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will benefit from nationally mandated reservation. Unfortunately, discussions on these points in the last one month have been going on with little or no representation by the people of Kashmir who are the supposed beneficiaries. That they were not taken into confidence before the decision was made was bad enough, but what is worse is the continuing restrictions on free speech. The elected Mayor of Srinagar and a doctor who spoke out about the risk to lives due to restrictions were promptly detained. The reports that emanate from the Valley in recent days, patchy as they continue to be, point towards increasing alienation among the residents. Ironically, the most disappointed are those who believed that Kashmir’s future would be secure within India. The Centre needs to reassure them that the change of status is not to the detriment of the people of Kashmir.