We mirror each other in our double standards
The fate of the Rohingya Muslims in the winter capital of
Jammu and Kashmir hangs in the balance. From Myanmar where even tonsured monks
in sacred garbs participated in their chase out of their homeland, they have
moved out to several countries. The figures vary from 2 to 3 lakh. One of the
destinations where providence has landed them is the city of temples, Jammu.
Out of all the Rohingyas in India, who have arrived through the smuggling
routes of Bangladesh after paying human traffickers, around fifty percent live
in the outskirts of Jammu, and in Samba. The number according to the government
as on January 2017 is 5743. Their arrival began around 2008, and climaxed after
the military crackdown on them in the native Myanmar, some months after a
military post had come under attack.
India is not a signatory to the UN Convention on
Refugees, in spite of which a number of NGOs have built pressure on the
government to provide a humanitarian face to the flow of refugees from outside.
Mostly, things were going well with the Rohingyas in India until some years ago
when suddenly some right wing groups rose against their presence, and cried
foul. And the word doing rounds is demography. That demography is going to be
changed by the long term presence and settlement of the Rohingyas, who are
Muslims. Most people who write from Kashmir about the matter, and most of whom
are Muslims, feel aghast at the treatment given to these refugees. How far is
this feeling genuine?
On a humanitarian level there is no doubt that the series
of events leading to the torching of their shacks is unfortunate. The putting
up of billboards threatening these men and women of dire consequences if they
do not immediately leave the place, the beating up of family members by unknown
men at night, and the latest threat by Jammu Chamber of Commerce of identifying
and killing the refugees are all part of a well-understood design to create
conditions for their eviction from Jammu. Even political parties like the
National Panthers Party have supported the apprehensions of demographic change
in the city in the wake of the inflow of refugees. Emotions aside, and the
threats and inflictions of violence condemned, there are double standards
visible from almost all sides. When native Kashmiri Muslims call for a better
treatment of Roghingyas, a right to their settlement in Jammu, what they are
actually evoking is a religious solidarity. The question may then be asked
whether similar right to settlement and livelihood will be granted to the swarm
of Indians who arrive in Kashmir in summer. Or let us say some Hindu refugees
come from Bangladesh, and by some stroke of luck decide to settle in Kashmir.
One can argue that the Indians in Kashmir are not
refugees for they have homes outside of Kashmir but then refugees are of all
kinds of shades. There are, for example, refugees from poverty. Can we have
similar thoughts about them, and give them similar latitude as is aspired for the
Roghingyas in Jammu? We do see a design behind the creation of colonies and
camps, but conveniently choose to read innocence on the part of the Roghingyas
in Jammu. All kinds of sanctimonious speeches are given about the state of
Rohingyas in Burma and Jammu. They are well-meaning but partial.
On the other hand, a good chunk of population of Jammu is
fine with the identification documents being issued to the refugees from West
Pakistan. Even if these refugees begin to share jobs with them in the armed
forces, there is no questioning that, again displaying a conspicuous religious
solidarity. There is also not a problem if colonies of different hues are made
in Kashmir, and homeland for Kashmiri Pandits is created in Kashmir, where
everything from India can be allowed move freely. All of these ideas which,
according to them, have nothing unfair about them and should be implemented for
the greater good of the people. The tears shed when anyone from any state of
India is harmed in Kashmir disappear in case of the Rohingyas. The
apprehensions of demographic change in this context are just antinational
rants, which lack substance. It is demographic change when a religious stranger
appears in the neighbourhood and just plain requirement if a similar stranger
appears in Kashmir. We mirror each other in our double standards. They wish
them out, we wish them in, and both have a purpose in mind, which does not
necessarily favour either.
The problem is that both Rohingyas and other people
flying home for various reasons into Jammu and Kashmir, actually enter into a
place which is itself a peculiar refugee from and peace and political
certainty. When two refugees meet, you can only have chaotic ambiguities and
contradictions in positions of the stakeholders. The refugees from peace, in
the pursuit of their fond dream, produce distant connections. None wishes to
find the reason for being in such a state of vivid contradiction and hypocrisy.
One set of people do not seem to comprehend the anxieties of the other, and
swift about-faces are common. In spite of having certificates from the United
Nations High Commission for Refugees, Rohingyas in Jammu will often be seen in
news in the future. Their shacks will be torched and their families harassed.
They may have arrived in this state with the hope of finding co-religionists
and a degree of comfort; however, they do not seem to know that they have
arrived into a place which might turn out to be more hostile to them than the
native Rakhne region of Burma. While it is uncertain what will happen of them
in the future, they may choose to stay despite the odds or leave for their
life, what might happen is that the conversation about them may open the path
to the disclosure of our Janus faces.