A Discourse On Slogans And The Violence They Breed

The incidents in JNU on 9 February 2016 where Azaadi slogans were raised are perfect propaganda cases of jihadi discourse. Two important tools used in the 9 February incident are: sloganeering and celebrating martyrdom widely used by the jihadi groups across the world to highlight their struggle and cause.

So what’s the big deal in it? Why have the state and its instruments come so heavily upon the university students? Why is sloganeering seen as a threat to the territorial integrity of India? To understand it we need to look into the meaning, importance and history of slogans and celebration of martyrdom in India, and of course its impact.

Jihadi slogans chanted at JNU can have unconscious impacts and can be influential in disseminating the ideas of Kashmiri separatists and equally derive visceral revulsion against the state.

According to Robert Denton, slogans function to simplify complicated ideas, express group ideology and goals, create identification, provoke violent confrontations, and fulfill hopes for the future. Political sloganeering has a long history, and every political discourse - violent or non-violent - has used it as a rhetorical and persuasive device.

The function and characteristics of the’ Kashmir ki Azaadi’ slogans are meant to provoke confrontation and not a rational debate on Kashmir issue. Weeks of live telecast and equally pro and anti debates on TV channels and newspapers have provided the right kind of platform to the separatists and the organisations who want to keep the issue alive and prominent.

One of the most dangerous aspects of such sloganeering is the glorification of terrorists as martyrs, as it was done in the JNU case, where Afzal Guru and Maqbool Butt were hailed as martyrs. Slogans keep dead terrorists alive as martyrs, and martyrs keep movements alive.

Martyrs of Kashmir

“More mythology is added as the legend of Maqbool Butt expands. [he] may one day join the ranks among the ‘rishis’ (sages) of Kashmir who are believed to have such powers that they could travel by air, mounted on a stone boulder, when their mounts tired,” security analyst Praveen Swami quotes poet Rafique Khan in his Book India and Pakistan and The secret Jihad on the immense popularity separatist Maqbool Butt gained after being executed on 11 February 1984. The day is still commemorated by Kashmiris across the world. The JNU incident dangerously reminds the legend of Maqbool Butt to us, that it is only growing and perhaps will remain as long the movement is alive.

The glorification of separatists by Kashmiris continues as we witnessed it during the funeral procession of the LeT militant, Abu Qasim, who was killed in an encounter in the Kulgam District on October 29. Violent protests broke out in Srinagar after security forces disallowed a requiem prayer for Qasim. Earlier in January 2015, thousands of residents in Kashmir attended the funeral of two Hizbul Mujahideen terrorists, Abid Khan and Shiraz Dar and hailed them as “martyrs.”

The connection of martyrdom with political violence has religious notions across the world, including India. Islam conceives the concept of Martyrdom in light of the holy war called jihad. Most of the actors who have been bestowed an honour of being a martyr had strong religious beliefs.

The act of martyrdom is grounded on profound religious faith and it glorifies instances of rebellion, valour, and pervades a sense of nationhood amongst the future aspirants. According to Laleh Khalili, an Iranian American Professor in Middle Eastern Politics, commemoration of martyrs and their elevation to tragic yet iconic figures in the Palestinian collective memory helps to forge a sense of nationhood and inspires people to struggle for the freedom. This is true for every violent political movement.

A congregation called Sarbat Khalsa organised by radical Sikh organisations at Amritsar on 10 November 2015 appointed Jagtar Singh Hawara, a convict in the former Punjab CM Beant Singh assassination case, as Jathedar (Head Priest) of Akal Takht, the supreme temporal seat of the Sikhs. The suicide bomber in the assassination case of Beant Singh Dilawar Singh was recognised as a national martyr by the same temporal body. Other convicts such as Balwant Singh Rajoana has been conferred with the title of living martyrs.

The first and foremost aim of hailing these terrorists as martyrs is to keep the notion of Khalistan alive. It also helps to highlight the alleged atrocities committed by the state and the resistance offered by martyrs.

India has similar stories of celebration of martyrdom in the North-East where the outlawed People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) observes Athoubasinggi Ningsing Numit (Martyrs’ Day) on November 12 every year in remembrance of the Kameng Leimarok incident and the Kabo Wakching incident of 12 November 1979 and 1985 in which top leaders of the outfit were killed.

Last year Maoists have erected memorials in Visakha Agency areas in Andhra Pradesh ahead of Martyrs’ Week. The Maoists erected four permanent memorials (stupams) between G.K. Veedhi and Koyyuru, and a memorial near Kumkumpudi. Maoists celebrate their martyrs’ week beginning July 28.

In case of PREPAK and Maoists, notion of religion may not be a factor in elevation of actors of political violence to a martyr level, but the purpose remains the same - to elevate a figure to an iconic level in order to inspire people to fight for their ideological or political cause.

State and its response

Does a state need to be apprehensive of such slogans and the celebration of martyrdom? Frankly, it depends upon the state, the degree of fragility, conflict and violence. India is traditionally considered fragile and conflict-prone. This view derives its plausibility from the fact that the population of India is vast and heterogeneous from Kashmir to Kanyakumari and Gujarat to Arunachal Pradesh. We have witnessed many separatist, secessionist insurgent movements since our Independence.

Such slogans and calls for confrontation may not be an immediate or direct threat to the integrity of India’s territory, but certainly paves way for future conflict and consequentially, loss of human lives. One may vary on the magnitude and extent of the government response, but to assume that it was completely avoidable may be a mistake.

Above all, a state’s fragility should not be assessed only in terms of loss of territory but also with loss of human lives. And as long as value of human lives remains worth protecting and core to the idea of our democratic understanding, we must feel offended by these slogans celebrating martyrdom and separatism.