India administered Kashmir remains heavily militarised
Kashmir Times, 24 December 2009
Editorial: REDUCTION OF TROOPS
Even though the union defence minister A K Antony has announced the withdrawal of 30,000 troops and the issue has become a matter of politicking for various parties from New Delhi to the troubled Jammu and Kashmir, there is still no clarity about whether there indeed is even a marginal withdrawal of forces from the state. The army officers in the Northern Command have outrightly rejected these claims and maintained that any movement is only a part of routine relocation from one place to another. Reports have suggested that this relocation has happened over a period of months. It is, however, not known whether the troops relocated from specific areas have been replaced by fresh troops of the army or other security forces. Whatever be the case, the position on the ground does not reveal any change or relaxation. If indeed 30,000 troops have moved out from the heavily militarised state, the fact that despite shifting out such huge number of army personnel every part of the state continues to be as militarised as before only goes to prove how disproportionately large the presence of troops in Jammu and Kashmir is, impacting the social, economic and political fabric of the state. The fresh controversy about whether the troops have been moved out or not stems from a lack of transparency about the exact number of troops operating in Jammu and Kashmir.
Whether or not there has been a constant rise in the number of para-military forces in the state in the last couple of years, the grim reality of increasing cantonments, bunkers and camps of the security forces, many of them virtually extending into villages and even people's homes, betrays a persistent policy to militarise areas and not de-congest them. Without bringing authentic facts on the table, the government has always been in absolute denial of the acute militarisation of the state. Yet, the signs are all too evident. Jammu and Kashmir, which is not the only border state in the country, is heavily burdened by the presence of defence forces, BSF, CRPF and other para-military forces and multiplying the local police battalions, besides arming the SPOs and VDCs. Additionally all the central forces enjoy unlimited powers and unlimited impunity due to prevalence of draconian laws and the police force too enjoys extra-constitutional powers, all in the name of security. This is a paradox in the face of the fact that even as per government own admission, as well as the statements of various security agencies, there is a substantial decline in militancy related violence in Jammu and Kashmir. All these are signs of militarisation that is so badly impacting the life of the civilians, denying a healthy democratic space and the much needed civil liberties which stand threatened with so many men in uniform virtually breathing down the necks of the people, especially in the rural areas.
A natural follow up of the decline in militants and militancy related violence should have been a reduction in the presence of troops and curbing the unlimited powers given to the men in uniform. Even a proposed peace process and engagement with the separatists should have been preceded by a move to demilitarise the state. This could have been one of the major confidence building measures besides addressing the human rights issue and imperative for greater inclusion of people. Instead, the powers of the security forces and the police have been strengthened to the extent that the forces have become the unquestioned holy cows with no accountability for their acts of omission and commission. Jammu and Kashmir today is one of the most militarised zones in the world and this cannot either be denied or solely attributed to the fact that this is a border state. This state alone does not share its troublesome borders with Pakistan. There are several other states that do. Besides, the forces do not simply man the borders, they are present in every nook and corner of the state, the ratio working out to one armed man in uniform for every twenty five persons. Such a scenario can be a major stumbling block in the peace process. If security scenario has improved, there is no reason why a phased withdrawal of forces should not begin. And if security is still quoted to be the pretext, there are several areas in the country which intelligence reports warn are under severe threat of terror attacks. Then going by this plea, many parts of rest of the country including the metropolitan cities too should have been militarised. If the security agencies can manage to thwart security threats with minimal security apparatus in these cities, then why should Jammu and Kashmir be treated any differently?