Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s posture towards Kashmir has been even more aggressive than that of his predecessors. Under his stewardship, security forces in the occupied territory are given free rein to kill and harass those who are fighting for their freedom. Hundreds of children have been blinded by rubber bullets and even international organisations have finally begun to take note of the brutality of the occupation. It is this cruel reality in Kashmir that makes Modi’s Independence Day speech on August 15 so jarring. He called for peace and development in the region and said the situation can only be resolved by embracing the Kashmiri people and not through bullets and curses. For these words to come out of Modi’s mouth is disingenuous to say the least. He and his party have been quick to choose violence in order to militarily subdue the people of Kashmir. Modi’s recent words are clearly meant to placate international and domestic observers. They need not be taken at face value and, indeed, should be seen as a perversion of reality. He has repeatedly denounced the liberation movement as being comprised of terrorists and tried to pin the responsibility for what is a genuinely indigenous uprising on Pakistan.
It is in keeping with Modi’s neoliberal economic ideology that he believed decades of repression can be erased by what he calls ‘development’. A few bridges and roads cannot hide the everyday indignities and brutalities the people of Kashmir have to suffer. Every protest they take out is met with live fire from Indian forces. Their media is censored and mobile networks regularly shutdown. Curfews are imposed to deny the Kashmiris their right to free assembly. In such an atmosphere, development work alone will not help the situation. If Modi were truly committed to a change, he would allow in international human rights observers. He would finally respect multiple UN resolutions on allowing the Kashmiri people the right to self-determination. In his speech, Modi referenced from former and recently deceased prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee as an example of the peaceful path he hopes to follow. While Vajpayee was indeed a more peaceful man than Modi — indeed it would be difficult not to be – the former’s reputation for moderation is also inflated. Ultimately, the aim of maintaining the occupation in perpetuity is the same. Just because Modi is using a carrot rather than a stick this one time does not mean his thinking has changed at all.