In this situation of war – rhetoric, policy, and action – there is a consensus in India. It closesthe gap between the ruling party and the opposition, bringing all shades ofopinion close. There is a gathering of voices around the centre. called India –an idea, a nation, a country, and state.
The poisonous euphoria created by the Indian media, and bythe ruling party network, initially didn’t leave any room for the saner voicesto raise questions about a conduct that can only be called mad. Bur littlelater critical commentaries and opposing voices returned. But that is not thetermination of consensus. The dissenting voices against the behavoiur of theruling party are not contrary to the national consensus that has always existedin India. A handful of journalists who try to apply some sobering reality checkis also not anything that goes against that consensus.
The consensus that India has so successfully cultivated overthe years is about the identification of the limits of internal difference, andthe recognition of where the realm of external challenge begins. All theinternal differences melt away when it comes to the external challenge. Andthis is the hallmark of a functional state. Remember it was the Congressgovernment, headed by PV Narsimiroa that sent the opposition leader AB Vajpayeeto defend the Indian case on Kashmir in the UN. When it comes to Pakistan and Kashmir, the limits drawn by the nationalconsensus are recognised, and held dear by all the political parties in India.Right or wrong, this is besides the topic right now.
Now come to another nation-state, Pakistan. There is a consensus there as well. Anational consensus that closes the gap between ruling party and the opposition,bringing all shades of opinion close. There is a gathering of voices around thecentre, called Pakistan – an idea, a country, a nation, and a state. Pakistanalso knows where the limits of internal difference end, and where the line ofexternal challenge begins. Remember it was Syed Maududi, arch rival of ZulfikarAli Bhutoo, who counselled the Afghan students to seek support from Bhutto.Maududi knew that the internal opposition to People’s Party apart, Bhuttorepresented the consensus of the state of Pakistan.
In both the countries there are narratives and institutionsthat hold the consensus, consolidate it, and make it a defining force;something that concretises in times ofcrisis.
Where do we, the people of Kashmir, stand in this all. Ateetwal ka kutta – with all respect for Manto – must not define us anymore. Weare not a state. We are claimed by two states, and divided by a Line that turnsus into two controlled parts. But we are a people who know about them being apeople. An international, or a national cartography may draw lines differently,but as a people we have the idea of who we are and what is our spread. We areconscious of our relationships – geographic and historic. Can thisconsciousness be activated to create a narrative, and build a consensus.
This Indo-Pak war in the skies is beyond us. Howsoever, wetempt ourselves into believing that we are at the core of it, we are not. It isthe consensus of the two states about Kashmir that is at the core, and thismisleads us into believing that we are at the core. I’m aware of the differencebetween one consensus from another of the two – of our proximity to one anddistance from another – but that is besides the point right now.
The point here is this: where do we as a people, with anawareness of being a people, stand at this critical juncture. A moment when oneafter another assaults are mounted on our political space. What is that centrethat defines our circle of space. Just a cursory look at the recentdevelopments.
One, the constitutional safeguards are under serious threat.Two, there is a military offensive and young boys – boys that finally belong tofamilies in Kashmir – are getting killed every day. Three, the people and theparties in the dissenting space are getting arrested, and banned, in a tortuousway. Four, the points of governance and administration are fast drifting awayfrom us. Five, our economic opportunities are diminishing, and no wonder thereis an element of deliberation in this. Six, our political possibilities arefast disappearing. Seven, our limited spaces where we could express ourselvesare also shrinking.
These are some of the objective things. Cumulatively itmeans that all our defences are blowingapart one by one. Is this a time to search for the people’s narrative and workfor building a consensus on that. And does it mean that we have to startspeaking to each other, than at each other, in this moment of collectivethreat. Is this the time to reorient the politics of Kashmir.
This reorientation is possible only when two things areseriously, and comprehensively, thoughtthrough. One, principled and avowed dissociation from all forms of violence –guns, stones, abuses, and labelling. Two, renegotiation of the actualcontestation between electoral and non-electoral politics.
mrvaid@greaterkashmir.com