The security of the State is of utmost importance. But the rhetoric of securitization can have collateral damage — from Kashmir to Kerala. In a seminar organized by the Army Management Studies Board, exploring the apparent “symbiotic” relationship between overground facilitators of terrorism with conflict management, a former army-man-turned-leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party complimented Jammu and Kashmir’s police for ‘picking up’ overground workers — a phenomenon unique to the Valley — who, he alleged, functioned as hubs of logistical support for terrorists. Similar echoes are being heard from Kerala where the police have been accused of summoning socio-political activists and journalists and seeking their personal details in the course of a drive against anti-social elements.

There can be no disagreement about apprehending elements that pose a threat to the State. But their apprehension must follow the rule book: it cannot be a rogue process. Trigger-happy security personnel, protected by controversial, draconian legislations, have been known to draw civilian blood, as was evident in Nagaland recently. In a nation where the security apparatus has been repeatedly accused of violating human rights — the Supreme Court was forced to examine the deaths of citizens in the hands of security forces in Manipur — this blurring of lines between civilian and terrorist is worrying. This is especially so because in both Kashmir and Kerala, there is concern that the primacy of security is being used as an excuse to target members of civil society — a constituency that has been vocal about the transgressions committed by the State. Such a crackdown could jeopardize civil liberty as well as damage the plinth of democracy because civil society — demonized by the current dispensation — serves as an important instrument to check the predations by the State. The conflation of identity between civilians and militants must be discouraged, be it in Kashmir, the Northeast or in districts affected by left-wing extremism. What should, in fact, be encouraged is minimizing the encroachment of security forces in the public domain. For this to happen in Kashmir, the local political fraternity must be allowed to retain its autonomous voice. Democratic politics, as is evident from the sorry state of affairs in Kashmir, can be one of the victims of the shrill narrative on the security of the State.