At a time when the political response in Kashmir is represented in terms of second uprising and where the political discourse is being defined with reference to the slogans of Azadi, the issue of diversity and political divergence within the state also becomes pronounced. The intensity of the street responses, the level of political mobilisation and the extent of popular involvement – is something specific to the Kashmir valley. It is not that there is a total unconcern in Jammu to whatever is happening in Kashmir, but certainly there is a specificity to the situation in Kashmir. This specificity is historically determined and reflects the ethno-centric identity politics of Kashmir. While the contours of this identity politics are defined by the cultural, linguistic and regional factors, the singular religious affinity of the mass of Kashmiris (the Pundits being an influential but miniscule minority) has brought in the factor of religion also. The factor of religion, however, does not make this identity communal for the simple reason that its boundaries are clearly defined by the ‘Kashmiri-ness’ and being Muslim is not enough to be an ‘insider’. To be an ‘insider’, one has to be a ‘Kashmiri’.

The cultural-linguistic base of the ‘Kashmiri identity’ has a political edifice and it is this edifice which determines the political sentiments and political responses in Kashmir. While much of this edifice was created during the political mobilisation in the period of 1930s and 1940s, the political developments in the post-1947 period have also contributed to it. It is with reference to this political edifice that one can locate the demand for ‘Autonomy’ in 1947, the issue of ‘plebiscite’ in post – 1953 period, the demand for ‘Azadi’ in post-1989 period.

The specificity of Kashmir’s political responses has to be located in the larger reality of the state which is defined by social diversity on the one hand and political divergence on the other. This reality generates an internal complexity which though is recognised and conceded, but has remained largely unaddressed. Unfortunately, it has been addressed only by those who have sought to translate the divergence in plain communal terms of ‘Muslim Kashmir’ versus ‘Hindu Jammu’. One can find ‘n’ number of formulas starting from the Dixon formula which have sought to address the complexity by suggesting the division of the state either on religious or on regional basis.

Most pertinently, there has been no attempt to bridge the political gap between Jammu and Kashmir. The dominant political class both in Kashmir as well as in Jammu, has rather taken for granted the divide and in many cases has sought to take political mileage out of it. The polarisation that one sees between Jammu and Kashmir – in the last six decades has been intensified with political elite finding it convenient to nurture the ‘Kashmir versus Jammu’ constituency in both the regions.  Along with the political class, it is the media which has been contributing to the emotional divide between the two regions. The polarisation, therefore, does not reflect only competitive demands for jobs, distribution of resources and share of political power, but it reflects a strong psyche of intolerance of the other region. 

In terms of the conflict situation of the state, it is very important to address the political divide. That without addressing it, there may not be any progress, was very clearly understood during the recent phase of peace process when the separatists hopeful of some progress in the dialogue process had started talking about the intra-state dialogue as third layer of the dialogue (along with the India-Pakistan and Delhi-Kashmir dialogue).

Writing about the political divide in the state as early as fifties, Balraj Puri had put forth the argument that there would be no possibility of Kashmir problem getting resolved till the time the political issues of Jammu are also addressed. In his famous book ‘Jammu: A clue to Kashmir Tangle’ he had made a case for an inclusive approach to deal with J&K by addressing Jammu’s political aspirations along with that of Kashmir. His logic, probably was based on his assessment of the post-1947 situation of the state wherein the exclusive logic of Kashmir’s political discourse did not have an connection with the people of Jammu. The National Conference, remaining the ‘Kashmir-centric’ party did not seek to extend its base in Jammu. Its political discourse, though benefiting the landless peasantry, did not mobilise them. In the absence of any political connection between the two regions, no appreciation could develop in Jammu about the political aspirations in Kashmir and on the contrary lot of apprehensions were raised about the new political regime and its political agenda. The 1952 agitation against the special status was a reflection of the political divide at that time. That this position has not changed since 1952 was reflected during the NC’s Autonomy debate in late nineties. The demand for Autonomy, was seen as a ‘Kashmiri’ demand located in the history and aspirations of Kashmiris. In the absence of any inclusive political discourse around the issues related to the state, the political aspirations have come to be seen in compartmentalised manner.

It may be an accident of history that the three regions of the state came to form one political unit. However, once formed, its integrity has become a compulsion for all, since there is no possibility of its division without the communal and bloody consequences. The plurality of the state is a living reality and its political divergence a fact to be reckoned with.  It is therefore a very big challenge to think of any future political dispensation of the state without resolving the issue of this divergence. The challenge becomes all the more difficult to meet in the context of the strong ideological divide – with Kashmir nationalist emotions being pitted against Indian nationalist emotions.

Once the debate about the divergence becomes open, it would generate a number of complex issues. The issue of internal differences within the regions; the rights of the majority; the aspirations of the minorities and a number of related issues would emanate and would need to be addressed.

Responses are welcome at rekchowdhary@gmail.com)

Lastupdate on : Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:30:00 Mecca time
Lastupdate on : Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:30:00 GMT
Lastupdate on : Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:00:00 IST