Kashmir and its Politics: A Sense of Deja Vu

Political uncertainty defines Kashmir. It is both a structural and a psychic condition. Notwithstanding the political process that has been instituted in Kashmir, these twin conditions are the determining prongs of Kashmir’s politics. The various convolutions of Kashmir’s political history stand testimony to this. Be it the resistance movement pioneered by Sheikh Muhammad Abdulla against the Maharaja, then against Indian rule, or the insurgency catalyzed by massive disaffection against India in the late eighties or the convolutions and churn of protest movements that go under the nomenclature of Ragda, the catalyst and premise for all these is political uncertainty. The patina of peace and tranquility and the attendant tourist influx is illusory. Kashmir, it can be safely posited, can implode anytime.

The question is: why does this uncertainty of a political nature pervade Kashmir? What accounts for this? And how can this be obviated?

It is easy to answer all the questions except the last one. The all pervasive political uncertainty that defines Kashmir accrues from the fact that Kashmir’s incorporation into the sovereign remit of India has been a top down, elitist affair. It has not had the support of the masses and it would appear that the power structure of India appears to be content with this. This has created a void and a vacuum that is filled by the politics of manipulation and coercion. The various convolutions and cycles of violence besetting Kashmir are then self explanatory. This also creates space for external intervention and subvention. However, the problem lies within and concomitantly the solution probably lies within as well. This is not to suggest that other stakeholders to the dispute over Kashmir, like Pakistan, can or should be ignored. Pakistan has to be factored in and perhaps given its structural and existential angst and problems, the time may be ripe for reaching out to Pakistan and reaching a plausible and durable modus vivendi with it.

So why has the Indian state not bothered to make Kashmir’s incorporation into India an inclusive, bottoms up affair?  Distrust of Kashmiris and fear is perhaps the answer. The Indian political class has never really trusted Kashmiris and it has been paranoid about Kashmir. This is complemented by fear. That is, the Indian state or powers that be in India appear to fear the unknown and the uncertain. This has naturally led to the politics of manipulation and coercion and a politics whose gravamen has been dictated by the Centre. This, in turn, has naturally and inevitably alienated the masses in Kashmir.  The chasm and the gulf despite the lull in violence and the instituting of a political process has only deepened and widened.  The much celebrated and touted , ‘idea of India’ has never really made a debut in Kashmir and given the nature of politics in Kashmir, Kashmiris remain skeptical about democracy in India.

Is this condition remediable? Or is it a spiral in which Kashmiris and the Indian state remain perpetually estranged from each other only to be conjoined by the coercive authority of the state? There are grounds for optimism: there is ample scope for the condition or situation to be remedied.  The Indian state and Kashmiris are not condemned and doomed to a relationship of estrangement. What could potentially redeem the situation/condition is a new politics- a politics informed by trust, amity and disavowal of paranoia. The initiative for this has to and must come from the Indian state. Sincerity , a bold and beautiful approach in turn informed by the primacy of imagination over fact, has to be the gravamen and thrust of this approach.

 What would this mean in practice? This would mean reaching out to Kashmiris and treating them as coeval with Indians. More specifically, this means departing from hackneyed approaches, listening to Kashmiris and then instituting a bottoms up political process wherein Kashmiris are given and accorded real choice(s) in determining their politics. Or in other words, it means granting self rule or autonomy to Kashmiris. If this is underpinned by sincerity and a genuine desire for rapprochement underpins it, it is possible that Kashmiris will reciprocate and give up maximalist claims of freedom and secession.  This would entail bold and beautiful leadership by the Indian political class- something that has been glaringly absent since Kashmir’s incorporation into India. Howeverm , it is the sine qua non and an exigent need if both India and Kashmir are to attain closure and plenitude. Concomitantly, this approach needs to be complemented by a human security approach that improves the life chances of Kashmiris.

Cumulatively and in concert, this approach may give short shrift to the forces of recidivism and irredentism. Sooner or later, this has to happen. Prudence dictates that the nettle be grasped soon and the miseries of a people be alleviated. This is a win win solution and can only redound positively to all parties. It is therefore about time then that an approach that smells of roses be instituted. It is owed to both the people of Kashmir, India and the subcontinent.