The Idea of India and Greater Autonomy for Kashmir

The obvious conclusion to draw from the US ambassador, Timothy Roemer’s visit to Kashmir and choosing to meet its elected representative, Omar Abdullah, and snub the entire spectrum of the separatist leadership is that the United States, through the prestige of the Ambassador’s office, is lending its weight onto Greater Autonomy for Kashmir. This sensible approach accrues, at a macro level, from the overall and broader situation in the region-Pakistan’s inexorable drift into quasi anarchy and a fragile state, the structural problems of Afghanistan and the attendant implications and spillover for Kashmir or the inverse. It also means explicit recognition of the fact that ethno nationalism in this day and age is passé and the formation of new micro states premised on ethno nationalism is a non starter and that the international system cannot bear the burden of new states especially after the drift of some decolonized states into state failure. And that disputes arising from ethnic mismatches and incongruent borders that went under the rubric of self determination are better resolved within the state paradigm. While this realism may go against the principle of self determination articulated by Wilson, it is, in this day age, perhaps the only antidote to problems engendered by ethno nationalism and the self determination conundrum or paradox.

Insofar Kashmir is concerned and at a micro level the Greater Autonomy plank or stance has been held by the ruling party, the National Conference since its inception and more poignantly since its towering leader, the late Shaikh Abdullah, entered into an Accord over Kashmir with the Government of India, in 1975. Resisted by powers that be in the Centre, greater autonomy also came to be sidelined during the heyday of insurgency in Kashmir. The separatist leadership would settle for nothing less than maximalist demands-secession from the Indian union freedom for Kashmir which was , at least for a substantial chunk of the separatists a Trojan horse for eventual merger with Pakistan. However, gradually and inexorably, on account of attrition, the changed extraneous political environment after September 11 and the structural problems that Pakistan faced, the insurgency could not be sustained and it gradually ebbed. Followed by a lull and an interlude of relative calm, the people of Kashmir, in a sense, fed up with political impasse and gridlock, took to the streets and rearticulated their grievances against the Indian state in the idiom of freedom. This maximalist demand obscured the real problems, that is , a political gridlock and foot dragging by the Government of India over resolving the Kashmir problem for good and its preference for a precarious status quo where the GoI took the defeat of the insurgency by the Indian state as validation for its approach towards Kashmir. The result was that the street became the theater of politics where the alienated youth bulge of Kashmir spewed their rage and angst at the Indian state, de nouveau. So in a sense, the situation in Kashmir reverted to square one in terms of the alienation of people and their demands. This is the micro backdrop to the Roemer visit and the US preference for greater autonomy for Kashmir- a sane and the only practical solution to the vexed problems

Now the question is what impediments could the greater autonomy paradigm or formulation face in India and second what would it mean in practice for Kashmiris? The resistance to greater autonomy is more likely than not to come from the Hindu Right smitten by the Hindutva bug. The Hindu Right in the past has tried to make political mileage from the special status bestowed to Kashmir, Article 370 of the Indian constitution and ,by twisting and putting a spin on it, has presented it to the people of India as a blot on India and accused its proponents of pandering to the minorities and ‘pseudo secularism’. However, real issue is larger than this one. Greater Autonomy for Kashmir is about the Idea of India: the idea that Nehru had in mind and the one that is making the world notice India: its deeply entrenched secularism and liberal democratic nature. Greater autonomy for Kashmir, in effect, validates this Idea of India: a confident, vibrant and plural India at peace with itself and not squeamish about its sovereignty. It is about an India that nurtures and respects its minorities and places them at a pedestal that in the final scheme of things can only enrich India. Au contraire, the alternative idea of India put forth by the Hindu Right and its schemes for Kashmir only negate this idea of India and condemns India to what is essentially alien to it: regression, distrust, and a monofocal view of India. It is to the former idea of India that the powers that be in India should revert to and crystallize and Greater autonomy in this schema becomes central to it. One implication pregnant and rife with positive consequences is that this idea of India makes Kashmir the part of India on account of soft power and not the hard variety: an approach that is in the final analysis help India achieve what it has hitherto failed in: winning the hearts and minds of Kashmiri’s for good.

What would this autonomy mean in practice for Kashmiri’s? It should, first mean an expansive identity that does not need the abstract state to fructify and reach efflorescence and second, it should mean real and significant empowerment of all Kashmiri’s. This can only happen when the terrain of the struggle shifts on the domain of rights and entitlements-political, economic and social. Rendering tangible these sets of rights should, in the final analysis, render Kashmiri’s empowered and confident and this can only happen if flesh and substance is accorded to Greater Autonomy for Kashmir and it is not merely a shift in nomenclature and a glorified name for the same old politics. In today’s globalized world, where the state, while remaining the basic unit of politics, has however in some areas transformed itself and shed its queasiness and squeamishness about some attributes of sovereignty , devolving chunks of power to constituent states just means being aligned with significant global trends and not going against their gravamen. And it should, for a state like India, which has positioned itself in the arterial system of globalization not be difficult. In a rather counterintuitive way, Greater Autonomy for Kashmir also means validation of being a Great Power-an aspiration that India holds. Rightfully. The US ambassador’s visit is confirmation of the factors enumerated in this article. So for a better future for all , peace within and without, let us make haste slowly and grasp the opportunity