India’s moral claim to Kashmir has never seemed more fragile

As Kashmiris bled and went blind, what was striking was the refusal of a large number of Indians even to acknowledge their torment. India’s voluble news media tripped over themselves in urging the government to be even more unsparing

India has spent the past decade lying to itself about Kashmir. The Pakistan-sponsored insurgency of the 1980s was contained. Elections were being held in the valley. People were defying militants to vote in them. Separatism was a cause of the fringe. Merger with Pakistan was the obsession of an infinitesimal minority. It was time to resettle the Hindu Kashmiris cleansed from the valley in the 1980s.

The reactions to the ongoing eruption of violent protests in Kashmir reveal the depths to which such comforting lies percolated the Indian consciousness. India is shocked to discover that, far from being stifled, the fervour for independence has intensified and infected sections of Kashmiri society once regarded as reliably pro-Indian. Indians are surprised to learn that the large sums of cash Delhi has poured into Kashmir has not endeared them to Kashmiris. Half a million Indian soldiers are deployed in Kashmir. They no longer seem capable of restraining Kashmiris without randomly distributing deaths and disabilities among protesters. Politicians currently in power in Delhi cannot fathom the crisis of legitimacy that stalks the state in Kashmir.
The appearance of calm in Kashmir began to shatter last summer with the killing of Burhan Wani. A charismatic young advocate of independence from India, Wani was a militant who lived by the gun. His eloquent exhortations for "azadi" from India, recorded and uploaded to the internet, made him a cult figure. In his last video, he offered "advice" to Kashmiri officers: turn your weapons on India. He was hunted and killed by Indian armed forces, who branded the operation the "biggest success against militants" in decades. Kashmiris saw things differently. There was a public outpouring of grief to the news of Wani’s death. A 100,000 crowd gathered at his funeral. Within days, Kashmir was consumed by civil unrest. Dozens of protesters were killed by Indian forces. There were as many funerals for the dead and every funeral became an occasion for renewed protest. India, having imposed a curfew, initiated a "non-lethal" crackdown. In practice, this meant firing "pellet guns" at crowds of protesters. The "pellets", loaded with lead and designed to penetrate the soft tissue of the body, mutilated and blinded hundreds of Kashmiris.
As Kashmiris bled and went blind, what was striking was the refusal of a large number of Indians even to acknowledge their torment. India’s voluble news media tripped over themselves in urging the government to be even more unsparing. Insulated from any meaningful debate on New Delhi’s conduct in Kashmir, many Indians fell back on old shibboleths to make sense of what was unfolding there. 
In these uncomplicated narratives, Kashmiri Muslims who protested against New Delhi were naturally Pakistan-sponsored jihadis. Indian armed forces were incapable of wrongdoing. And Kashmir, without exception, was an "integral" part of India. This is a belief system that asserts India’s ownership of Kashmir by effectively disenfranchising Kashmiris.
The Indian army continues to function under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act in Kashmir. 
One of the cruellest pieces of legislation on India’s statue books, the AFSPA grants immunity from prosecution to the troops operating in Kashmir and other restive regions of the country. India advertises itself to the planet as the world’s largest democracy, a nation of laws, but consider the plight of the Kashmiris who have been persecuted on the mere presumption of being enemies of Indian democracy – and then denied the legal remedies of democratic India to challenge that premise. Kashmiris are vilified at the slightest provocation as fifth columnists and deemed unworthy of the protections afforded to citizens in other parts of the country. But they are expected, in all circumstances, to pledge constant allegiance to India.

The writer is an Iranian-American scholar and president of the International American Council on the Middle East

Indias moral claim to Kashmir has never seemed more fragile

As Kashmiris bled and went blind, what was striking was the refusal of a large number of Indians even to acknowledge their torment. Indias voluble news media tripped over themselves in urging the government to be even more unsparing

India has spent the past decade lying to itself about Kashmir. The Pakistan-sponsored insurgency of the 1980s was contained. Elections were being held in the valley. People were defying militants to vote in them. Separatism was a cause of the fringe. Merger with Pakistan was the obsession of an infinitesimal minority. It was time to resettle the Hindu Kashmiris cleansed from the valley in the 1980s. The reactions to the ongoing eruption of violent protests in Kashmir reveal the depths to which such comforting lies percolated the Indian consciousness. India is shocked to discover that, far from being stifled, the fervour for independence has intensified and infected sections of Kashmiri society once regarded as reliably pro-Indian. Indians are surprised to learn that the large sums of cash Delhi has poured into Kashmir has not endeared them to Kashmiris. Half a million Indian soldiers are deployed in Kashmir. They no longer seem capable of restraining Kashmiris without randomly distributing deaths and disabilities among protesters. Politicians currently in power in Delhi cannot fathom the crisis of legitimacy that stalks the state in Kashmir. The appearance of calm in Kashmir began to shatter last summer with the killing of Burhan Wani. A charismatic young advocate of independence from India, Wani was a militant who lived by the gun. His eloquent exhortations for azadi from India, recorded and uploaded to the internet, made him a cult figure. In his last video, he offered advice to Kashmiri officers: turn your weapons on India. He was hunted and killed by Indian armed forces, who branded the operation the biggest success against militants in decades. Kashmiris saw things differently. There was a public outpouring of grief to the news of Wanis death. A 100,000 crowd gathered at his funeral. Within days, Kashmir was consumed by civil unrest. Dozens of protesters were killed by Indian forces. There were as many funerals for the dead and every funeral became an occasion for renewed protest. India, having imposed a curfew, initiated a non-lethal crackdown. In practice, this meant firing pellet guns at crowds of protesters. The pellets, loaded with lead and designed to penetrate the soft tissue of the body, mutilated and blinded hundreds of Kashmiris. As Kashmiris bled and went blind, what was striking was the refusal of a large number of Indians even to acknowledge their torment. Indias voluble news media tripped over themselves in urging the government to be even more unsparing. Insulated from any meaningful debate on New Delhis conduct in Kashmir, many Indians fell back on old shibboleths to make sense of what was unfolding there. In these uncomplicated narratives, Kashmiri Muslims who protested against New Delhi were naturally Pakistan-sponsored jihadis. Indian armed forces were incapable of wrongdoing. And Kashmir, without exception, was an integral part of India. This is a belief system that asserts Indias ownership of Kashmir by effectively disenfranchising Kashmiris. The Indian army continues to function under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act in Kashmir. One of the cruellest pieces of legislation on Indias statue books, the AFSPA grants immunity from prosecution to the troops operating in Kashmir and other restive regions of the country. India advertises itself to the planet as the worlds largest democracy, a nation of laws, but consider the plight of the Kashmiris who have been persecuted on the mere presumption of being enemies of Indian democracy and then denied the legal remedies of democratic India to challenge that premise. Kashmiris are vilified at the slightest provocation as fifth columnists and deemed unworthy of the protections afforded to citizens in other parts of the country. But they are expected, in all circumstances, to pledge constant allegiance to India. The writer is an Iranian-American scholar and president of the International American Council on the Middle East