Omar’s ‘De-linking’ Legacy Dividing people on linguistic lines is highly dangerous, illogical, unjustified P G Rasool Omar Abdullah’s televised August 15 address was interesting in some ways. He tried to recount the successes of his government over the past five-and-a-half years, but chose to overlook the 118 fatalities of the 2010 state violence and the rehabilitation of the victim’s families. Far from making a mention of the ongoing trauma of Kunan Poshpora, or the Shopian tragedy, he played the vote-bank card by announcing five per cent reservation for the ill-defined “Pahari-speaking people.” This is another step in besieging the Kashmiri-speaking people and squeezing their chances of employment and development. Dividing people on linguistic lines is highly dangerous, illogical, and unjustified. If every other linguistic group, like the Gujjars, or the so-called Pahari-speaking people, has a right to reservation, then so do the Kashmiri-speaking people too. You cannot have reservations for all linguistic groups and also allow them to eat into the space of the open merit category. The poorest of the poor, the largest chunk of such classes, belong to the Kashmiri-speaking population, and successive governments have increasingly deprived them of opportunities, making the future more bleak and hopeless for their children. There is no denying that the state has a legitimate duty to work for the uplift of the less privileged and the poor. But one can’t define such parameters on the basis of language. This is plain division on linguistic lines that could prove dangerous in the long run. One is not poor or backward because one speaks this or that language. Nor is it correct to assume that all Kashmiri-speaking people are privileged and rich because they speak a particular language. The case of Maharashtra would be an apt example. The government there reserved 16 percent seats for the majority Maratha community, and five percent for the Muslims. After granting reservations to scheduled tribes, scheduled castes, LoC residents, backward classes, the Gujjars and the Pahari-speaking people, the largest linguistic group, the Kashmiris, ought to be given a 12-16 percent quota, leaving the rest open for all groups and categories. The National Conference-led coalition government took many steps in haste in the past few weeks, including increasing the retirement age of employees, and the issue of Rahbar-e-Taleem teachers. And this is not the first time that it has taken unjustified measures for vote-bank politics. During Farooq Abdullah’s 1996-2002 term, the party continued to sign the state’s water resources away to New Delhi under BOOT agreements, constituted uncalled-for Hindu Shrine Boards, strengthened killer squads in the police, etc., etc. Unfortunately, these people go to sleep for full five years and then suddenly wake up to take hasty and wrong steps. One fails to understand that why the NC is not well advised to study the political and social facts of the state. There are so many factors it could benefit from. Omar Abdullah could have fairly studied, and banked upon, some of his own achievements, and mustered the courage to rectify his mistakes. One such positive aspect about Omar Abdullah’s politics may be discussed here. In his August 15 speech he said that elections in the state were not for resolving the Kashmir issue but for matters like electricity, water, roads etc. He could have added the issue of employment. Omar Abdullah has been consistent in de-linking the Kashmir issue from elections and government formation. This is a little discussed matter but has much greater and longer political significance. In this “de-linking stand” Omar Abdullah is markedly different from Mufti Muhammad Sayeed who has been tying elections up with the Kashmir issue, though his “rich” interpretation leaves much room for political maneuvering. Given Omar Abdullah’s stand, one is left to understand that the people’s vote is, or should be, for forming the local government and not for the “integral part” theory. The Omar government has been severely criticized on many counts, and rightly and genuinely so, but if his tenure has a positive political legacy, it is his de-linking of the Kashmir issue from the state’s electoral politics and government formation. This denies New Delhi the diplomatic victory of propagating that voting in Kashmir vindicates its position on the Kashmir issue. There undoubtedly are enough people who may not agree with Mr. Abdullah’s stand and view it merely as a political ploy to woo people to the polling booths. But the fact remains that this stand, on which he has been consistent for the past six years, will give him a distinct political identity, irrespective of the results of the upcoming assembly elections. While castigating his government’s monumental mistakes, one should not lose sight of this signal contribution.
Posted on: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 01:36:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015