Give substance to symbolism The Diwali visit must seek to revive social collaboration, political reconciliation, and democratic participation BACK TO BASICS HASEEB A DRABU SmallerDefaultLarger Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s fifth visit to Srinagar on Diwali is a political fire-cracker. And like all firecrackers it has to be handled with care and caution. It is at best an “engagement initiative” and at worse “engagement offensive”. But engagement it is. No denying that. The earlier four visits to the state in a span of six months is more than what any Prime Minister has ever done. There has to be some thought behind these travels. Successive Prime Ministers of India have had a special, albeit complex relationship with Kashmir. Most PMs, if not all, used Kashmir to reinforce, if not to define, the idea of India. For Jawaharlal Nehru Kashmir was a symbol gilded with sentiments; for Indira Gandhi Kashmir was about showcasing statecraft and negating the concept of Pakistan; for Rajiv Gandhi it was a Centre-state issue which needed rebalancing. For Vajpayee, Kashmir was a cause. It could become a proof that India had matured and evolved to become a nation. For Manmohan Singh, Kashmir was about sincerity and ethical political behavior. It was precisely with this kind of baggage of the national leadership that Kashmir policy got formulated. It distorted the representations of realities and consequently the realities of Kashmir. First a reality was represented and then the represented reality became the perceived reality at decision-making levels and then it became the reality that got addressed. While it is early days yet for PM Modi, it would appear that Kashmir is not only his route to gain a modicum of acceptability among the Muslims in India but gain leadership in regional forums like the SAARC. The economically impoverished Muslim in India has in the recent elections got politically disempowered. For him Kashmir is now the last bastion. Historically, the Indian muslim and the Kashmiri Muslim have been completely disengaged. Recall during demolition of the Babri masjid, the most peaceful place in India was J&K. Now a major shift is underway. Till now, it was the Indian Muslims who was used to justify the existence and being of Kashmiri within India. Now it is other way round; both for Modi as well as his ideological opponents. In this sense, Kashmir has gained in significance politically in the Modi era. As is his style, Modi has upped the ante and raised the stakes. The stakes have never been higher. Kashmir is more important for BJP than it ever has been for the Congress. The reason being that for the Congress, Kashmir was a vindication of its “secular” ideology. For the BJP, it is a live contradiction of their dogma and doctrine. Obviously the political treatment that BJP will impart to Kashmir will be vastly different from what it has been in the past. Despite many visits, Modi hasn’t expounded his views on Kashmir. Keeping his cards close to his chest, he has made only one direct intervention on the Kashmir issue. This is when he asked if and how Article 370 has been “beneficial” for the people of the state in any manner. As this column argued, (Article 370: A Reply to Narendra Modi, Greater Kashmir, 19th December, 2013) the benefit of Article 370 has been to make J&K a politically empowered state, an inclusive economy and an identity conscious society. This is exactly what Chief Minister Narendra Modi had aspired for Gujarat. Be that as it may, the manner in which the Modi led BJP has gone about its political agenda in rest of the country, we are staring in the face of a very serious shift in the politics of Kashmir: from a very specific ethno-national politics of identity to a much more generic politics of ideologies. In a country where now religion is beginning to have primacy over ethnicity, the politics of Kashmir can get redefined. It will be a shift that will, if successful, impoverish the politics of Kashmir. By pitting the BJP directly against the separatists of various hues, the rules of engagement will be changed. In this the Hurriyat will get marginalized and the significant space that it undoubtedly occupies in the political spectrum of Kashmir will get taken over by militant outfits of hues. This will, amongst many other things, negate the major change in the form of resistance that had evolved over time. In the new battle of fundamentalists, a new grammar of anarchy will be created which will squeeze the space for a progressive political thinking based on a fundamental realization that opposition to oppression, prejudice and discrimination will be more relevant after the alleged exuberance of territorial independence. The worry is that, given the overall weave and weft of BJP’s politics, this will degenerate into a Hindu India versus Muslim Kashmir. The political positions will become murkier and will pave the way for a trifurcation of the state. For the people it will negate the very raison de’tre of the collective struggle and suffering for the last twenty five years. And in the process it will radicalize as well as polarize the society further. All this is happening at time rather crucial transitioning time. It is not adequately recognized that the current generation has grown under vastly differing circumstances than those who have led the struggle. The new generation has grown up in, and with, oppression and occupational siege. Their notions of ethnicity are very different; they relate to Kashmir differently and so too to India and Pakistan. As such in the emerging politics, there is a huge risk of radicalization of the youth. This sets the stage for going back to none too distant a past. Notwithstanding anything it is impossible not to acknowledge that the form of protest in J&K changed in 2009-10: from violent to non-violent; from group action to mass based; from induced to spontaneous. The mass, spontaneous and peaceful protests were a major gain: socially as well as politically. For, guns don’t have a role. Now, this positive development can come under threat of reversal. The net result will be that the idea, intent and indeed the ideology of separatism will undergo yet another change. And for the worse. It is precisely for this reason that Modi needs to establish the intent that J&K will be handled with care and consciousness. More importantly, by him. The signs so far, in this regard, have been less than encouraging. On Kashmir, till now, Modi’s minions have put on display BJPs political immaturity. Far from exhibiting statesmanship, it has demonstrated a penchant for needless political ruckus and ideological brawls. Instead of the shrill and trying to up the ante, it might help to see the resolution of Kashmir is not independent of the normalization of India-Pakistan relations. Not only do these relations provide the context, they will also catalyze the process of resolutions. In as much as the people of Kashmir accept the mandate that BJP has got nationally, the BJP must acknowledge the mandate that the people of Kashmir have given and will give in the forthcoming elections.
Posted on: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:59:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015