Governance and Alienation in Kashmir: the relevance of Professor Fukuyama to Kashmir

It has been asserted that the Kashmir ‘problem’ is all about governance (or misgovernance)and  the frustrations bred and engendered by pervasive unemployment  Some would add the ‘class factor’ or  in the Marxist jargon, ‘class struggle’ to the brew. The demand or quest for azadi( freedom) ,it is adduced from this, is held to be the manifestation of deeper anxieties and psychical disturbances accruing from material discomfort. In short, the problem is reduced to that of economics and deterministic materialism. The corollary and the implication is that if broad based economic growth is allowed to take root with a reasonable redistribution of income, the problem would go away.

  Kashmiri’s would be so enthralled and taken by this that their fixation on ‘freedom’ and ‘self determination’ would melt and dissolve. The Kashmir problem or issue would then go away with Kashmiri’s finally accepting India’s sovereign remit over Kashmir. This reduction of the Kashmiri as homo economicus is not only facile but also simplistic and goes against the gravamen of what constitutes history and the historical process.

History and the historical process , in contrast and contradistinction to the Marxist reading of history which deem and reduce both to dialectical materialism and the class struggle between owners of capital and labor, is the panning out and dénouement of the historical consciousness and is largely ideational in nature. That is to say, it is consciousness and ideational factors that render the world in their image. Or in other words, ideas are the animating motor of history.

  This rendering and reading of history is attributed to the Russian émigré Alexandre Kojeve and   the German philosopher George Frederich Hegel. Whether it was Hegel who resuscitated Kojeve’s thesis or whether Hegel’s insights were original is a moot point. (Obiter dictum, it was the eminent political philosopher , Francis Fukuyama, who  gave a new lease of life to both Kojeve and Hegel and came out with his path breaking and controversial End of History and the Last Man thesis).What is of significance here are the implications and consequences on human nature and behavior and the attendant impact on history and the historical process. That is,  what is it that drives human beings and is the motor of history?

Hegel’s central insight may provide the answer to this question. Hegel posited that besides  what has come to be known as the ‘hierarchy of needs’ ( a phrase developed by  and attributed to the organizational and business theorist Abraham Maslow) of food, security , safety and sex, man desires  and craves the recognition of other men. He/ she wants to be recognized as having inherent worth and dignity. ‘This worth, to quote Fukuyama,is related to his/her willingness to risk his/her life in a struggle over pure prestige. Only man is able to overcome his most basic animal instincts- chief among them his self preservation-for the sake of higher, abstract goals and principles’. This, according to Fukuyama, stems from Thymos -identified by the Greek philosopher Plato, as a part of the soul which makes people invest in their sense of worth. The attendant desire for recognition, accruing from thymotic pride, determines politics and drives the historical process. Fukuyama adduced from this thesis that history, understood as the struggle for recognition, had ended with liberal democracy sating this fundamental quest /desire of man. Determining the veracity of this bold claim is not in contention here. What is of pertinence here is the relevance of Hegel’s argument to Kashmir, Kashmiris and their politics.

If Hegel’s argument is true, then the struggle of Kashmiri’s framed and articulated in the idiom of nationalism, freedom and its corollary self determination corresponds to the archetypical struggle that defines the human condition and is the motor of history. This then gives short shrift to the theories that reduce the Kashmir conflict to economics and governance. Yes, unemployment, class divides that define Kashmiri society, frustrations accruing from lack of economic opportunities and advancement, an unresponsive state and governance apparatus play a role in crystallizing rage , anger against the state and the alienation thereof  but they are not pivotal. They are mere symptoms or catalyzing factors that bring to the fore the more profounder and elemental notions of prestige, thymotic pride and the struggle for recognition.  Once this is understood and put into perspective, the solution to the vexed dispute may become clearer. Policy paradigms that take account these powerful abstractions can be developed and then implemented.

 The question is what would constitute prudent and sophisticated policy paradigms that speak to the Kashmiri condition? This isa billion dollar condition and entails a complex interplay of politics, geopolitics and international relations.   For reasons of brevity, the focus here is only on the political dimension of the conflict. Given that the Indian state, against which the ire of Kashmiris is directed against, purports to be a liberal democracy, we have grounds for optimism. The Indian state should/could demonstrate its liberal democratic tenor and nature to Kashmiris and make the constitutional guarantees of rights-economic, cultural and political-real to/for Kashmiris. This may, in practice, mean greater autonomy or self rule for Kashmiris wherein Kashmiri’s feel masters of their own destiny and future. The politics of machinations, intrigue and opportunism need to be shelved and supplanted by sincerity and genuine politics. Kashmiris should feel confident that their aspirations for the ‘good life’ and the desire for recognition could be met and sated within the Indian firmament. It is perhaps then that the desire for recognition and thymotic pride would be sated and Kashmiri’s can attain closure and plenitude.

Men are moved by more than self preservation and material improvements.  Abstract principles like honor, rectitude, the desire for recognition, dignity and self worth animate them. This is universal and holds true for Kashmiris. Reducing them to homo economicus and deeming the conflict in Kashmir as governance and  an unemployment problem is perverse and ahistorical. Let the power structure ofIndian realize and then recognize this and let it then gird and brace itself for a paradigm shift. Kashmiris have long suffered from the myopia accruing from a misreading-willful or otherwise- of the conflict in Kashmir.It is about time then that history be ended in Kashmir. We all have a stake in it.