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.