Many other things Chidambaram also uttered recently, with which I have no problem to agree – the abrogation has increased unrest in Jammu and Kashmir, that India should cultivate the people and leaders of Jammu and Kashmir and win their trust, and mere muscle power is not going to help resolve the problem in the valley. Mixing national interest with cheap politics might help his party score some points but the damage his utterances do to India can be far reaching.
Article 370 was supposed to be abrogated at some point of time. It was a temporary provision. Chidambaram can argue that in the abrogation process the government could have consulted the opposition parties but claiming that the abrogation was done for religious purpose is like arguing that Article 370 was incorporated in the constitution for a religious purpose. It is not necessary that one must search for communal motives in all policies. That was one of the reasons why India got partitioned in the very first place. The two-nation theory held that everything is communal, everything can be seen through two-nation, and Hindus and Muslims cannot coexist. By attributing a communal motive to India’s policy to abrogate Article 370, Chidambaram is just subscribing to this two-nation theory.
One can apply Chidambaram’s logic to the policies of leaders like Sardar Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru. Patel sent forces to Hyderabad to secure its integration with the Indian state. Chidambaram’s logic would tell us that Patel, a Hindu, was sending forces to integrate the Hyderabad, ruled by Nizam, a Muslim. This logic would also apply to Nehru, who sent forces to Kashmir after the Pakistan-supported forces invaded Kashmir after the partition and occupied significant portions of the princely state.
Mixing national interest with petty political goals, deliberate or not, has increasingly become a norm in recent years. When a seasoned politician, and a former Home Minister, succumbs to this temptation, one can imagine the herds that follow such leaders, and how social media and propaganda machines within and across borders ceaselessly circulate such confusing utterances.
It is true that there is unrest in Jammu and Kashmir, and India has not been successful in addressing the challenges posed by this unrest. The increasing fighting between the security forces and the disgruntled youth in recent years is a testimony to this unrest. As the conflict is entangled with religion (in the shape of two-nation), territorial claims, geopolitical ambitions, blaming one factor and ignoring other factors make a poor understanding of the conflict. Not only that, it does not help address the conflict, but rather provides ammunition to spoilers who will be happy to quote leaders like the former Home Minister to support their activities.
I have no problem in agreeing with Chidambaram that the people of India should stand with the people of Jammu and Kashmir. During my visits to border areas, I came across acute alienation among the people of the valley, and that needs to be addressed. As I argued elsewhere, it is necessary that India must initiate people-centric policies and make the people and local leaders of the region stakeholders in the policymaking process. In this direction, perhaps it will be useful to engage in dialogue with groups like the Gupkar alliance and other stakeholders in the Kashmir conflict. It will be useful to learn from previous governments to steer such a peace process. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh initiated many positive steps in this regard. ‘Round tables’ and ‘heart-to-talks’ could be organized in the valley and other parts of the region. The people must not feel left out from the developments happening in the region, nor must they feel that the policies are imposed from above without their consent. While engaging people and their leaders in a spirit of dialogue, the government must use its muscle power to address the spoilers.
It should be clear to the leaders of India that Jammu and Kashmir conflict is not a Congress party issue or BJP party issue, to be used against each other. It is a national issue and all political parties having a stake in national progress must put serious thought on how to bring peace and development to the region. As India is a democratic country, the opposition must play a positive role when the government does not perform its duty, and at the same time support government policies which are necessary for national unity and development. The difference between a petty politician and a visionary statesman is certainly wide, and the Indian leaders, including P. Chidambaram, are not only accountable to the political party of which they are members but also to the people of India and the posterity even after they are dead and gone.
(This article was earlier published in my TOI blogsite: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/kashmir-chidambaram-and-cheap-politics/)
No comments:
Post a Comment