Daily Times

Narendra Modi wants to make his reputation as a man of action. He has waged a war on all fronts, and extrajudicial killings in the Indian-occupied Kashmir are widespread. The trigger was the killing on July 8 by Indian security forces of Burhan Muzaffar Wani, a 22-year-old separatist who wanted an independent Kashmir and had built up a support group on social media among Indian Kashmiri youth. Since Wani’s death, close to 100 people have been killed during confrontations between protesters and security forces. The number of victims will soon reach hundreds, a more horrific number.

The mounting death toll should come as no surprise. Modi campaigned on a law and order platform, his reputation was built on this image, and there was no reason to think that he would moderate his behaviour if he moved to negotiations on the Kashmir issue with Pakistan. The independence of the Indian-occupied Kashmir may well constitute a national crisis, but that cannot excuse shredding of the rule of law and extrajudicial killings. Kashmir is subject to India’s Armed Forces Special Powers Act, or AFSPA, which grants the military wide powers to arrest, shoot to kill, occupy or destroy property. The result is a culture of brutal disdain for the local population. The sight of human damage caused by the indiscriminate use of pellet guns is a reminder of Indian security forces’ impunity toward Kashmiri civilians. Human rights extend to the guilty and the innocent alike.

Criticism has been quick to follow. While acknowledging that the longstanding curfew in the Indian-occupied state of Kashmir is a serious problem, many Indian and international politicians, journalists and commentators rightly demand adherence to the rule of law and the protections embodied in the country’s constitution. Other governments have expressed concern about extrajudicial killings, and have urged the Indian government to respect human rights outlined in the national charter and international law. Over a 100 international nongovernment organisations have denounced Modi’s policies, demanding that international human rights charter unequivocally state that such killings “do not constitute acceptable security control measures.”

Modi has responded with denial and anger, threatening to wage a war against Pakistan and blaming the Pakistan Army for masterminding the Uri incident. This would be considered as the typical response from the Indian government when failing to tackle the domestic issues. Those comments were later retracted by Modi the next day when he explained that the Indian government was committed to the UN charter of human rights.

The loss of innocent lives or settling of scores under the guise of cleaning up the freedom movement in Kashmir is one problem. Even more worrying over the long run is the erosion of the rule of law in a country with a long history of abuse of power. Muslims settled in the Indian-occupied Kashmir have struggled to reclaim their democracy, and it has been a long and frustrating process. Modi is only the most recent in a long line of autocrats who have been irritated by the resistance showed by Muslims demanding independence from the Indian government. Unlawful use of the force and power has been and continues to be a real problem in Kashmir. But the solution to that problem is constitutional and neutral application of the law, not its disregard.

Yes, there will be much on the Kashmir plate, but it is expected that Modi would speak effectively, judge risks and touch reality. The foolishness, rather the madness, of killing more and more people in Kashmir, and threatening Pakistan would trigger surgical strikes and a threat of nuclear strife. Common sense has to prevail that Pakistan is not going to take the intimidation sitting down, and if even only threats are used, it must end. Diplomatic negotiations could help make this happen, and India needs to seriously consider Pakistan’s offer presented in the recent United Nations summit held in New York, coined under the term “Mission Kashmir.” If Modi speaks about the need to start a war and create more havoc on the war-ravaged planet, the general hope is he would be rational and add the issue of nuclear weapons to the list of prevailing risks. It is vital that he looks policymakers in the eye, considers the fragile situation and tells it like it is.

Many people have many concerns they want Modi to address: inequality, cross-border terrorism and violence in Kashmir. The suggestion, of course, is that something he says might perpetuate, even slightly, some pressing issues facing the current border tension. Expectations would only grow to reach unreal, even unfair levels, if he remains influenced by his hawkish generals. Dare I add one more moral concern to the list? Nuclear weapons and consequences of a nuclear war, even a small one. These are grave threats to humanity, and ones India seems to be playing a huge role in perpetrating at the moment, and Modi can change that.

Troubling questions about the timing and the circumstances of this Indian policy is obvious when Pakistan is heading towards finalising the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project, and India would be most unhappy with its progress. So too are questions about the unproven allegations of Pakistan’s involvement in Kashmir. These and other questions argue for an independent investigation into the use of force by the Indian security forces, and for the ban of practices including censorship, communications blackouts, and those allowed by AFSPA, a painful truth of India’s democracy.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bid to invoke the theatrics of “blood and water cannot flow together” is a desperate attempt to distract attention from his multiple failures on the domestic front, and regain his party’s lost ground in the country by training his guns outside it, on Pakistan. After trying to get even with Pakistan by inflaming militancy in Balochistan, and by blaming Pakistan army and the Inter-Services Intelligence agency for trouble in Kashmir, the rhetoric about a review of the Indus Water Treaty is yet another threat in this direction. The Indus Water Treaty is an international treaty that cannot be unilaterally altered. Water from the rivers under this treaty is the lifeline of billions of people from Pakistan, India, China and Afghanistan who are living in the basin. 92 percent water from the five rivers in these basins is shared between Pakistan and India as per the Indus Water Treaty, which was signed by both countries, and any threat from India would only make the regional peace volatile.

The writer is a professor of psychiatry and consultant forensic psychiatrist in the UK. He can be contacted at fawad_shifa@yahoo.com