We may never know who killed Shujaat Bukhari...

“Shujat Bukhari is shot dead”, the news stunned all. For a while I was in a state of absolute shock, in an effort to grasp the meaning and ramifications of this news. Now we will never get to hear Shujaat’s calm and even voice. Even this thought was hurtful. But it was painfully true that the people of Kashmir lost a true well-wisher. India too lost an interlocutor who relentless in criticising the state violence but was the best advocate of a dialogue with the state. In him, the world lost those eyes by which it could see and understand Kashmir as a friend.

This murder is the worst form of violence. Who murdered him, it is not known yet. Nobody has taken the responsibility for it. A Kashmiri leader has called it a mysterious murder. Who, after all will be benfited by this murder? It’s difficult to say where the bullets which killed Shujaat came from amid all the active sources of violence in Kashmir. Once he was abducted by the pro government militia. Then he was again abducted by the militants but they could not kill him.

Shujaat was killed on the last ‘jumah’ before Eid. It’s clear that whosoever committed this brutal crime has no regard for anything. To say that it is a further degeneration of terrorism hides the fact that terrorism in itself reflects the fall of humanity. For a while, there seems to be an objective to this violence, gradually, terrorism starts looking for violence. The one who has the gun and knows how to shoot, is as powerful as the state it, even if he claims to be fighting against the authority of a state. Other unarmed people remain at his mercy as they remain dependent on the state’s benevolence.

Shujaat Bukhari was gunned down on the day the United Nation’s report on Kashmir was released which identified the excesses of the Indian state in Kashmir. The Indian government immediately criticised the report and showed its unhappiness over it. But this report has been prepared by an international organisation, India is a member of and which, despite all its weaknesses, tries hard to protect human rights all over the world. After all, it was this organisation which raised the issue of state violence against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar. This report by the United Nations could have been a base upon which the debate over making the state accountable could have been taken further.

What could have been achieved by Shujaat Bukhaari’s murder, when this opprtunity had almost arrived for the state to be accountable. Obviously now the entire discussion has turned towards this murder and the objective behind it. It is also clear that this murder has not helped in any way the campaign in support of human rights or Kashmir’s autonomy. Instead this issue has now been sidelined by the argument that the softening attitude of the state always results in such tragedies.

Bukhari did not believe in striking balance or following the middle path. He supported peace. He was against violence. That is why he was always criticising the state violence or the excesses by the army. But he never wanted to let go of the slightest possibility for peace. For him, people’s lives were important. Bukhari never believed that any great objective can be fulfilled at the cost of human life.

How difficult it is to follow these principles in Kashmir can be understood by the fate those people met with who initiated the talks for peace. Manoj Joshi, in his article in The Wire, has menioned the murders of Mirwaiz Farooq, Abdul Ghani Lone and Fazal Haq Qureshi. These people did not support the Indian government but they were in favour of peace and harmony.

About a month ago Shujaat Bukhari in an article in Scroll had said it clearly, that this government can’t be trusted because it has constantly used the idea of peace as an excuse to procrastinate establishing peace.

The Kashmiri people are not the priority of this government, and Kashmir comes under its jurisdiction. However, because the excesses by the army kickstarted such a whirlwind of violence, taking lives of many innocent common people that the proposal of cease fire during Ramzan by the government should be accepted so that a conducive environment can be created and the issues of releasing the prisoners and misuse of laws in the name of security can be discussed.

Shujaat was never in favour of freeing the government from its accountability. He was telling the leaders favouring “freedom” that this opportunity should never be given up. Otherwise, it will prove that they have self interest in continuing the tense environment of violence.

Was this the reason why Shujaat was silenced? Or, as Manoj Joshi says, there is a role of deep invisible state behind his murder. the same was earlier suspected in the murder of Dr Abdul Ahad Guru and Dr Farooq Ashayi, whose murderer were anonymous and remained so.

Shujaat Bukhari had once said that in a place like Kashmir everything ends up being a mystery. We will most probably never come to know whose interest was served in silencing Shujaat.

He could make a reputation and credibility for himself in a violence struck place like Kashmir- it was not at all easy. Who else will be able to earn such a credibility and good will – it’s difficult to say. On one hand, there is Indian government which wants only its supporters, and on the other are the militants who are not willing to accept anyone else than their own advocates. Amid these two, the space for the sane voices like that of Shujaat’s is becoming narrower, the space where his blood was spilled. Who will pray for whom in these times?