The result of 2014 General Elections have evokedconsiderable concern in Kashmir with respect to the future of Kashmir andKashmiri people. There have been numerous attempts to make sense of thechallenge as well to suggest ways forward. Prof. Siddiq Wahid’s “Peoples Speak,State Wins” (Greater Kashmir, 9th June) is another contribution in the list.
The main arguments of the article can be summarized asfollows. The BJP victory should be looked as a change of State – controllingelite (liberal to conservative) rather than a change in Indian people. It is,then, the control of State power that is important to bring change. It isimportant, thus, for Kashmiris to take part in elections for achieving thisgoal. Such a strategy is important because, one, this are desperate times asKashmir is caught between a rock (an intransigent State) and a hard place(defiant youth). Second, because habitually not taking part in elections (whichhe strangely links to depoliticization) is a shot in the arm for the BJP.
The problem, however, with the article is that applies anargument originating from one situation to another, deriving conclusions,without making any context – specific modifications. To begin with, theargument for capturing State power may hold ground in the general election, ithardly makes sense in a state election. The State government is a constituentpart of Delhi rather than a separate entity. It, hence, will not have anindependent role in creation of elites (intelligentsia). The Central government will also have its say, which may beinfinitely more powerful. Even, if one agrees that such a group might be put inplace, Prof Wahid does not specify what role are they supposed to play? Neitherdoes history.
Historically, there has hardly been a situation where theState government has taken a confrontationist stand with the Centre anddefended the ‘rights and aspirations of the Kashmiri people.’ For most of thepart, they have been mere extensions of the central structure, even when thisstructure was controlled by the BJP. It is a common knowledge that ideologicalstands taken during election times quickly fizzle out once results are out (thetrajectory of PDP in 2014). Both major ‘unionist’ parties have had a historywith the BJP, paving way for the current hold of BJP on the state. Anotherparty is considered a BJP proxy in the valley, while the one having no historywith the BJP was, essentially, ‘born yesterday.’ Additionally, Kashmiripoliticians have usually, if not habitually, succumbed to money and power.History is testament to that. The current BJP has both, which the authoremphasizes. There is, thus, no guarantee that none would ally with BJP if achance arises. Keeping this in mind, what are the chances that election willresult in a powerful ‘opposition’ to the BJP?
Further what does ‘opposition’ signify? It cannot mean a dayto day opposition, emerging and playing on the streets. That is something theunionist parties may not be comfortable with and do not have sufficient cadreor ideological conviction to sustain. It is also an existential threat for themas such method is firmly associated with the separatist camp, both inside aswell as outside the region.
If it means an opposition through institutional mechanism,history has shown that to be a spectacular failure (case in point, 2000autonomy resolution). Additionally, the idea of an institutional bulwarkagainst the centre hardly holds water because BJP rarely respects laws,institutions and constitutional methods, as evident from their first term. Itwould be naïve to expect a turnaround.
Thus, such a plan of action is structurally inadequate. Inorder to ameliorate the current situation of Kashmir, one needs to shift thegaze a little bit. Instead of looking at political sphere as a distinct anddisparate entity, it has to be viewed as intrinsically linked to the socialsphere. Therefore, any attempt to look for ways to deal with the politicalproblem in Kashmir, it is also important to engage with the social problems ofKashmir. If looked closely, a lot of political problems are in – part effect ofsocial problems.
The different political factions and fragmentations thatKashmir is facing, though abetted by the state, have direct links with sharpsocial divisions present in the society. Therefore, until we address differentsocial issues by questioning social stigmas, behaviours and prejudices, thereis little hope that substantial change can be brought about in the politicalsituation of Kashmir. It is important because power, as philosopher MichelFoucault has argued, is not localised in one institution or place. It isdiffused through different social structures and behavioural patterns. Thus,unless we challenge and redefine these norms and the power associated withthem, any substantial redefinition of power at the political level will notoccur.
It is the social space, therefore, from which a ‘real unity’can emerge. Unity cannot emerge from a sense of desperation and fear, as Prof.Wahid believes. It may emerge based on specific political issues, like Article35A or 370, but such unity would be contingent, brittle and unstable. Unity can emerge from positive engagementwith social issues and problems that have been hitherto pushed under or glossedover, sometimes as insignificant and sometimes as impediment to the unity ofthe movement. Bringing such issues to the forefront will not, as is popularlybelieved, weaken any resistance but would instead broaden and diversify it,bringing in different shades and opinions, consequently strengthening themovement as a whole.
The issues concerning gender need be brought out of thecloset and discussed. Most societies around the world have terrible records ongender and Kashmir is no different. The growing class inequality needs to belooked into before it is too late. The different caste, regional, racial andreligious prejudices that have been imprinted in our minds, sometimes throughour use of language need be addressed. These issues, if brought to the fore andengaged with, can help in overcoming divisions, doubt and distrust within alarge section of the region.
There is no doubt that this is an idealist, slow and painfulprocess but a start has to be made somewhere. It is possibly the most’positive’ option Kashmir has, even unavoidable, if Kashmir wants to achieveanything constructive. Even if, as a measure of desperation, people decide thatparticipating in elections is necessary, choosing a government will be nothingmore than a stopgap. It can never be an agent of any form of change, or astrong opposition to BJP/RSS, because it is structurally linked to the Centre.Instead of emphasising on such methods, Kashmir should look into ways and meansa social process can be initiated, something largely neglected by people,including scholars such as Prof. Wahid. Political change and social action areinvariably linked. The former cannot happen without the latter, the lattercannot sustain without the former. A constrained, narrow and oppressive socialsphere would invariably lead to an oppressive, ineffective and desultorypolitics.
(The author can be contacted at 918527973693. Twitter:@mutahharamin)