Past Policies and Continued Predicament of Displaced Kashmiri Pandits
The magnitude of the phenomenon of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) is a daunting humanitarian challenge with upwards of 28 million in displacement (UNHCR, 2013). Conflict-induced displacement results in psychological, cultural, socio-economic, and political transformation of those displaced. Such was the displacement of the 250,000 Kashmiri Pandits (KP), a Hindu minority community in India’s Kashmir Valley (Valley), which ruptured the fabric of this community in 1989. This article unfolds the socio-economic costs of past policies and the continued predicament of this community.
KPs accounted for 5% of the population of the Valley, in the state of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K), within a majority Muslim population. “Since late 1989, J&K has been in the grip of a vicious movement of Islamist extremist terrorism” (Gill 2003, 1-2). The Indian authorities claim that in the 1980s, the Islamic guerillas in the Valley, trained and funded by neighboring forces, waged a separatist war dubbed as an indigenous freedom struggle. Anti-India campaigns were followed by police firings and curfews. The year 1989 is marked as a time after which “the guns are never silenced…and Srinagar turns into a war zone” (Pandita 2013, 73). Those voicing pro-India policy became the target of the militants. The KPs, as they professed a different faith, were "specifically targeted, perceived to be symbolizing Indian presence in the Valley," (Rai, 2011). Those who fled now form the pool of 250,000 displaced KPs (IDMC 2010) dubbed as “Migrants.”
Most fled to neighboring Jammu and others to Delhi. Having lived in Kashmir their entire lives, their ancestral roots and emotional ties resided in the Valley. Those displaced were teachers, professors, doctors, singers, farmers, businessmen, males and females, young and old, between the ages of three months and seventy years. There were those who were ready for retirement, and those who were yet to enter school. They owned land, orchards and farm animals. These families have a story to tell, their voices and their cultural expressions shed light on how they envisioned their future on the day of their departure from their “land of birth.” Some “basing their trust in God,” hoped that they will return when the Valley “regains its civility,” and could not fathom a future outside of the Valley. Others were convinced that they were denied “their last rights to die in homeland” (research participant). As the everyday policies disproportionally excluded this community (structural violence, Galtung, 1996) it became more difficult for them to protect themselves against death threats.
Similar to other displaced communities, Colombia, Mexico, Myanmar (Meertens 2003, Shinnar 2008, Fuller (2009) challenges were overwhelming. The unplanned move was daunting for those who had never left the Valley before. Metamorphosis of having become anonymous migrants from the respectable traders and proud owners of homes and orchards, and the exposure to camp life traumatized them. For some, the most troubling experience was the exposure to societies with “diluted” values that embraced "inter-caste marriages." The policies that emerged revolved around positioning this crisis as an outcome of a “temporary disturbance,” resulting in policies serving the “transitional needs.” However, the families position the crisis as “irreversible,” having permanently damaged their community. Given this divergence, the policy portfolio has yielded mixed outcomes, some policies falling short of intended goals, some in direct contradiction and some adding to families’ predicaments.
Moving out of their villages for the first time reflected a loss of home and identity. The national response through “township” like settlements did not reduce their sense of homelessness and identity. After 23 years, families lament the loss of their ancestral homes; the “transitional accommodations” only jeopardized their sense of permanence. Arrival in new cities meant new challenges, as the locals realized that the stay of the KPs was not temporary they “developed an antipathy towards this community” (Pandita 2013, 134). Locals made a case to push the families out of their communities, and the officials responded by relocating them to the “migrant quarters.” These townships meant to provide a close-to-home like experience, resulted in the moral hazard of robbing them of the needed services, and families resent “living in a vacuum without political space and rights” (research participant, Rajput, 2012).
Economic policies also created a dilemma. The pressure of securing adequate means of livelihood often spills into the host communities. To alleviate such pressures, policies included “temporary use” of the shops, by retaining the shop ownership, the government prohibited the users from altering the shops. Further socio-economic ills stem from the “migrant” label, which locals used to "dictate rules for inclusion/exclusion" (Tilly 2005, 6-7). The most enduring of the predicament has been the issue of return, entrenched in national policies and families’ own stance. The families remain in a state of dissonance (Festinger 1957), reluctant to commit to a “mixed society” or return to a society that “humiliated their identity” (research participant). Given the elapsed time, the government’s own stance remains ambiguous. On the one hand, they view this community as “migrants” who left “of their own volition” where the right of their return is a non-policy issue. Positioning the crisis as a “temporary disturbance,” exempts them from rehabilitation in new communities. However, the families praise some policies as having made a positive difference. Under the "Special Allocation for Children of Kashmiri Migrants," KP children availed themselves of education benefits. This empowered the children with survival skills and kept them from becoming victims of the streets and child labor, prevalent in many displaced communities (Aker et al. 2006). The prolonged absence from their homes has meant a shift in how the families reflect on the changes. For some, these changes reflect as growth and achievements, for others a disconnected identity.
Policies remain a function of how the elite positioned this crisis and the consequent narratives (Harré & van Langenhove, 1999). The physical act of displacement that occurred at one point in time set off a spiral of social and economic repercussions. Regardless of the personal stories triggering their departure, the exact date and time of their “shameful departure” is now ingrained in their psyche. After 23 years, those who dream of returning admit that the social fabric of their society has changed forever and that society can never be trusted again. The policy solutions exclusively addressing the rift between the KPs and the locals, through “townships,” have missed the larger structural context, needed to restore the long-term aspirations of the families. The predicament of this community needs to be understood as symptomatic of a larger problem that requires structural reform in the Valley. Kashmir faces internal clashes among factions about the future of the State, with the fate of the Valley in limbo. Since being evicted from their homes, in 1989, the families remain in exile, with the vision of returning becoming more blurry with each passing year.