Spiral of Silence in Kashmir (Aarti Tikoo, 2019)
In the last 30 years, the majority in Kashmir has been silenced by the barrel of the gun that Pakistan has aimed on Kashmir. Many prominent leaders and intellectuals of Kashmir who disagreed with Pakistan’s cross border terrorism or militant violence, have been silenced by bullets. Anyone among the intelligentsia who advocates peace has been gagged.
But ironically, the perpetrator of violence in Kashmir has been projected as the victim of human rights abuse; violence and threats of violence have been presented as dissent. In none of the great democracies like the United States, or those in Europe, have terror acts especially sponsored by a rival state, been legitimized by calling it dissent. In a democracy, expression of dissent or disagreement is not possible amidst intimidation and extreme violence. But it is a travesty that the world press, which completely ignores or is not even aware of the history and context of Kashmir and violence in the region, has unwittingly come to justify the perpetrators of Mumbai terror attacks and September 11. It is also disingenuous that when it has been amply established that terrorism in Kashmir is sponsored by Pakistan, a theocratic military state with pretensions of a democracy, the criticism is deflected by calling terror groups like JeM, LeT and HM as non-state actors. Husain Haqqani and Arif Jamal have documented how Kashmir-centric terror groups enjoy complete protection and patronage of the Pakistani military and ISI.
Kashmiri society has been under siege for the last three decades
because of Pakistan’s proxy war in Kashmir. In an atmosphere of fear and dread,
Kashmir has lost its voice and it speaks up only during elections when it
votes, and then too only if there is a sense of security. Because of the fear
of Pakistan sponsored violence, the dominant narrative remains critical of
human rights violations committed by the Indian security forces. It is
absolutely necessary that Indian forces are held accountable and prosecuted,
but it is also important that Kashmiris have the sense of security to speak
freely and fearlessly about the colossal abuse they have suffered at the hands
of Pakistan sponsored militant violence.
Kashmiris, as of now, are caught in a ‘spiral of silence’, a
process first theorized by German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann
in the context of German electorate in 1965. Spiral of silence is a phenomenon
in which one opinion becomes so forcefully dominant, that those disagreeing
refuse to speak up due to fear of harm or social isolation from holders of the
dominant opinion, and thereby fail to realize that their disagreement actually
forms a majority. This theory draws from the Lockesian view that humans are
social animals and are therefore afraid of isolation in their environment. Individuals
constantly look for their own purpose, meaning, relevance, popularity, respect,
and integration in the society they live in. That requires the individuals to
extend huge importance to their society’s opinions and approval.
“Individuals who when observing their environments notice that
their own personal opinion is spreading and taken over by others, will voice
this opinion self-confidently in public. On the other hand, individuals who
notice that their own opinions are losing ground, will be inclined to adopt a
more reserved attitude when expressing their opinions in public.” The
supporters of one opinion becomes confident, articulate, and can even turn
vociferous while the proponents of the other opinion will retreat, withdraw and
turn silent, especially in an environment ridden with intimidation, violence
and death. Silence, in such scenarios, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Neumann warns that “there is a definite influence on the
environment; an opinion that is being reinforced in this way appears stronger
than it really is, while an opinion suppressed as described will seem to be
weaker than it is in reality. The result is a spiral process which prompts
other individuals to perceive the changes in opinion and to follow suit, until
one opinion has become established as the prevailing attitude while the other
opinion will be pushed back and rejected by everybody with the exception of the
hard core that nevertheless sticks to that opinion.”
This problem of perception that drives a public opinion leads to
a complication called accuracy of people’s environmental perceptions. The
tendency of people to believe that others agree with them is seen as a pattern
called the ‘looking glass perception’. In a study on racism, Fields and
Schuman, for example, found that those supporting racial equality and civil
liberties were actually in the majority but were rarely believed to be a
majority by themselves or by others in the sample. This situation when a
minority position in public opinion is incorrectly perceived to be the
majoritarian view has been termed as ‘pluralistic ignorance’.
This presents a huge challenge. Are the most dominant narratives
in a conflict even majoritarian? Do violent movements represent the majority or
the minority? If a Kashmiri Muslim is being silenced by the sword hanging on
his head–that he is not a true Muslim if he speaks up against the Muslim who
riddled his son or father with bullets–can there be an intellectually honest
debate about human rights? Is the non-state really non-state when we know that
the bullet that recently killed a 65-year-old Kashmiri Muslim shopkeeper came
from Pakistan Army?
The reality on the ground is that the majority in Kashmir seek
and observe peace and they will speak up only when the atmosphere is conducive.
Since August 5th, the only violence that has been committed in Kashmir is by
Pakistan sponsored militants and separatists, not the majority that abides by
the rule of law. Human rights in Kashmir is not about the suspension of mobile
and internet services; it’s about the struggle of those who want to live freely
and fearlessly and those who don’t want them to live. Pakistan wants Kashmiri
Muslims to die for an Islamic cause while Kashmir wants to live for a better
future for its children.
So in any debate on human rights violations, it is important to
identify who the real perpetrators and the victims of abuse are. In Kashmir’s
case, Pakistan is clearly the biggest violator of human rights. Pakistan
therefore has no legal or moral authority to speak of human rights violations
in Kashmir while India has lost thousands of Kashmiri citizens and soldiers to
the violence Pakistan has perpetrated.
. . .
Excerpted from Aarti Tikoo's written statement for the record,
submitted at the United States House of Representatives Committee on Foreign
Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and Nonproliferation.
Full statement:
Comments
Post a Comment