The ugly denouement of the protest movement in Kashmir- -beating to its rhythm and gyrating to its own momentum- and the counter narrative of violence generated by the state has led to an impasse:the government apparently has decided to wait out and drain the protest movement of momentum while as the protesters seem to stick it out till the very 'end'.Who 'wins; or 'loses' in this macabre and gory contest is largely academic and a moot point. However, the lesson to be gleaned by all parties involved in the conflict is that the dispute over Kashmir is fresh and alive and urgently needs to be addressed lest it morphs into an inter and cross generational problem and carry spill over geo political effects. This rather clichéd assertion warrants elaboration: the Indian state's technique of containment or containing the armed insurgency may have yielded fruit in terms of neutralizing the strident militancy and insurgency but, to take recourse to a hackneyed cliché , the core issue , that is , sentiment. remain(ed) to be addressed. The sense of victory engendered by 'winning the war on insurgency' apparently has led to complacency on part of the Indian state which apparently, and especially after Sep 11, slept over the problem. The results of this complacency are now writ large , all over: massive and total alienation of Kashmiri's from the Indian state and body politic where stone pelting is the symptom of and metaphor for deeper , and wider structural problems.(Putting into perspective these structural problems is beyond the scope of this article).
Now this strange lapse on part of the Indian state raises a set of questions:what led to this complacency?What factors account for this?Why is or has been the Indian state unresponsive to the cacophony of demands raised by the protesters?Why the stonewalling?Is the Indian state and the powers that be in India afraid of taking bold steps?Is it the nature of democracy that is at fault here?Or would the revamp of the Indian political system make the system more response?Does a more responsive Indian state entail a redefinition of the Indian National Interest?Is the idea of India so weak that it cannot countenance claims like those articulated by Kashmiri's?Or is the Indian state afraid of the so called 'wild fire effect' and the attendant balkanization of India?The answer(s) to these questions necessarily lead us to an admixture of theorizing and speculation. First, let us address the Idea of India , its implications over and the nature of the conflict in Kashmir.
The idea of India , it would appear,has successfully withstood many challenges to to it-linguistic, economic cultural and secessionist. It's rather successful blend of unitary government flavored with a federal character has not only withstood challenges but accommodated them and groups demanding seccession and independence have been successfully co opted. So the 'wild fire' effect and the attendant fears of balkanization may not be germane. The Indian state;s response to both the insurgency in Kashmir and the problems that the conflict has engendered has been the usual one:beat the 'shit' out of the adversary and then whittle the opponent down in a game of attrition. While this approach or technique may have worked in Punjab and Assam, it , as the evolving situation demonstrates , is a non starter in Kashmir. Insofar Kashmir is concerned, it indeed is a special issue (its history and evolution attest to this) ,one that cannot be subsumed under the rubric of straitjacketed responses by the Indian state. It demands(warrants) an out of the box solution that may entail measures that could be politically unpalatable for the political parties and the political process. Hitherto, we have seen that it is populism and populist notions dished out as potential solutions to the Kashmir imbroglio. Witness the BJP's clamor over the abrogation of the Article 370 of the Indian constitution that ensures special status for the state of Jammu and Kashmir. OR the wrong framing of the conflict as one of essentialism. That is, reducing it to a Hindu- Muslim conflict and thus rendering it conceptually irresolvable and insoluble. Populism and 'populist 'solutions-the bane of democracies and democratic polities- will not do and will only ensure that the issue remains unresolved.In a country like India, where the majority of the population is Hindu, essentializing the dispute means pandering to the baser aspects of human nature and guarantees that the political party which want to tackle the dispute head on is doomed. So what can be done?
What needs or what may be needed to be done, is a conceptual redefinition of the Indian national interest and then building a consensus over this redefined national interest. This requires boldness, political acumen and leadership-all of which appear to be lacking in the Indian polity contemporarily. A redefined national interest gels and blends with emerging India's self image:that of an economic powerhouse and parity with other Great Powers.In this scheme of things, India and especially its emerging , affluent and self confident middle class can afford to take a more enlightened view on the conflict in Kashmir and crystallize a paradigm shift that frees the conflict from encustrances and encumbrances rendering it palatable to all parties involved in the dispute.This bottoms up pressure on the Indian political system and politicians may however be too optimistic.So we now take recourse another suggestion that takes into account the prosaic reality of the Indian polity, that is the sentiments of the masses or the 'hoi polloi'
In the final analysis, perhaps, at a macro level, it may be the rejigging of the Indian political system that may redound positively both to India's political stability and for the resolution of the dispute over Kashmir. I am thinking here a two party system along the lines of the US or neo presidentialism where the elections also devolve around to a referendum on the highest post in the country. This would free the system from populist pressures and lead, hopefully to the paradigm shift that I deem to be the pivotal factor in determining the Indian states renewed posture and approach to the conflict. Then, perhaps, a strong leader may have the gumption and the oomph to decide and resolve the issue once for all-taking the entire country with him/her.Other wise, it will be plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Now this strange lapse on part of the Indian state raises a set of questions:what led to this complacency?What factors account for this?Why is or has been the Indian state unresponsive to the cacophony of demands raised by the protesters?Why the stonewalling?Is the Indian state and the powers that be in India afraid of taking bold steps?Is it the nature of democracy that is at fault here?Or would the revamp of the Indian political system make the system more response?Does a more responsive Indian state entail a redefinition of the Indian National Interest?Is the idea of India so weak that it cannot countenance claims like those articulated by Kashmiri's?Or is the Indian state afraid of the so called 'wild fire effect' and the attendant balkanization of India?The answer(s) to these questions necessarily lead us to an admixture of theorizing and speculation. First, let us address the Idea of India , its implications over and the nature of the conflict in Kashmir.
The idea of India , it would appear,has successfully withstood many challenges to to it-linguistic, economic cultural and secessionist. It's rather successful blend of unitary government flavored with a federal character has not only withstood challenges but accommodated them and groups demanding seccession and independence have been successfully co opted. So the 'wild fire' effect and the attendant fears of balkanization may not be germane. The Indian state;s response to both the insurgency in Kashmir and the problems that the conflict has engendered has been the usual one:beat the 'shit' out of the adversary and then whittle the opponent down in a game of attrition. While this approach or technique may have worked in Punjab and Assam, it , as the evolving situation demonstrates , is a non starter in Kashmir. Insofar Kashmir is concerned, it indeed is a special issue (its history and evolution attest to this) ,one that cannot be subsumed under the rubric of straitjacketed responses by the Indian state. It demands(warrants) an out of the box solution that may entail measures that could be politically unpalatable for the political parties and the political process. Hitherto, we have seen that it is populism and populist notions dished out as potential solutions to the Kashmir imbroglio. Witness the BJP's clamor over the abrogation of the Article 370 of the Indian constitution that ensures special status for the state of Jammu and Kashmir. OR the wrong framing of the conflict as one of essentialism. That is, reducing it to a Hindu- Muslim conflict and thus rendering it conceptually irresolvable and insoluble. Populism and 'populist 'solutions-the bane of democracies and democratic polities- will not do and will only ensure that the issue remains unresolved.In a country like India, where the majority of the population is Hindu, essentializing the dispute means pandering to the baser aspects of human nature and guarantees that the political party which want to tackle the dispute head on is doomed. So what can be done?
What needs or what may be needed to be done, is a conceptual redefinition of the Indian national interest and then building a consensus over this redefined national interest. This requires boldness, political acumen and leadership-all of which appear to be lacking in the Indian polity contemporarily. A redefined national interest gels and blends with emerging India's self image:that of an economic powerhouse and parity with other Great Powers.In this scheme of things, India and especially its emerging , affluent and self confident middle class can afford to take a more enlightened view on the conflict in Kashmir and crystallize a paradigm shift that frees the conflict from encustrances and encumbrances rendering it palatable to all parties involved in the dispute.This bottoms up pressure on the Indian political system and politicians may however be too optimistic.So we now take recourse another suggestion that takes into account the prosaic reality of the Indian polity, that is the sentiments of the masses or the 'hoi polloi'
In the final analysis, perhaps, at a macro level, it may be the rejigging of the Indian political system that may redound positively both to India's political stability and for the resolution of the dispute over Kashmir. I am thinking here a two party system along the lines of the US or neo presidentialism where the elections also devolve around to a referendum on the highest post in the country. This would free the system from populist pressures and lead, hopefully to the paradigm shift that I deem to be the pivotal factor in determining the Indian states renewed posture and approach to the conflict. Then, perhaps, a strong leader may have the gumption and the oomph to decide and resolve the issue once for all-taking the entire country with him/her.Other wise, it will be plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
