Kashmir, Chidambaram, and cheap politics

In a recent tweet, P. Chidambaram, former Home Minister of India, termed Indian government’s abrogation of Article 370 ‘(un)constitutional coup’. At other places he attributed religious motives to the policy and reasoned that India abrogated the Article because Kashmir is Muslim-dominated region, and argued India used its muscle power to keep Kashmir in its fold.

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/)

The Jahajis’ social contract and the Jammu and Kashmir conflict

I have dealt with various dimensions of the Jammu and Kashmir conflict elsewhere, here my goal is to draw attention of the readers to historical developments far away from the Indian subcontinent, as the developments there are instructive for the conflict. I argue that the historical development in the Caribbean islands thousands of miles away hold lessons for the current leaders of Jammu and Kashmir to address the conflict peacefully, while fighting for rights and justice.

In the mid-19th century hundreds of Indians, mostly from U.P. and Bihar, were taken to Caribbean islands as indentured laborers. Known as jahaji (as they were transported through ship or jahaj in Hindi), these gullible people were promised great things before transported to the islands. Their long and arduous journey and life aftermath belied those promises. Their months long journey had no privacy, they were not given proper meals, some of them died on board and some of them jumped from the ship to inevitable death, and even some produced offspring while confined to open spaces in the ship. Depicted well in recent documentaries on these laborers and their harsh life in foreign lands, the stories of the jahajis bring forth the struggle for survival, and despite hardship how these people adapted and thrived.

But more interesting, and which is perhaps less researched, is that these Indians despite their religious differences shared the same destiny and enjoyed and suffered together. The jahajis included both Hindus and Muslims, and they had an unwritten understanding or social contract that they would live together despite all the travails.

They seldom fought against each other, but they fought together against their colonial exploiters. There are stories in which they protected each other against the colonial exploitation, and even protected women, irrespective of religious identities, against sexual exploitation by the colonial masters at the risk of their lives. As I interacted here in Florida with many of the descendants of these jahajis, who later migrated to the United States and Canada, that spirit of communal harmony persisted those days and even persists today. Hindus and Muslims lived and live together and share happiness and sorrow by taking part in each other’s festivities. There are instances even when male members belonging to one religion died because of exploitation or killed by the colonial exploiters, their vulnerable family members were taken care of by people from the other religion. And that communal harmony survived since the 19th century.

The story of the jahajis is certainly instructive for Jammu and Kashmir conflict. The violence in Jammu and Kashmir became severe when it took a radical religious turn. The conflict persisted since the last seven decades, but became violent in the last three decades as it enmeshed more deeply into the discourse of two nation – Hindus and Muslims – as if they are born enemies, or as if their coexistence is something anathema to peace and harmony. That was the narrative promoted by hardline religious elements, termed as spoilers in conflict resolution literature, and when these elements were supported by Pakistani state machinery actively, the problem became nastier, leading to massive exodus of minorities from the valley. The turn of the political conflict into an identity conflict or religious identity conflict proved dangerous. The region of Jammu and Kashmir became a pawn in the larger radical religious matrix, which further pushed the conflict into a dead end of violence, killing, and darkness.

Hence, when the leaders from the valley emphasize that India must talk to Pakistan to address the conflict, one should not have dispute on this had they also, in the same vein, like the jahajis in the Caribbean talk about the minorities within the valley and the whole of Jammu and Kashmir.

It is true that the Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir are minorities in the larger Indian context, but they are majority community within Jammu and Kashmir. How do the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir fare when the issue of exploitation of minorities within the valley comes to picture? It is perfectly alright when they articulate about their marginalization, but they seldom articulate the concerns of minority communities within their society, or the minorities who have fled persecution in Pakistani side of Jammu and Kashmir or from Pakistan.

They have not, at least I have not come across in my research, raised the exploitation of minorities within Pakistani side of Kashmir with the Pakistani establishment or during their engagement with Pakistani leaders in India. Keeping this picture in mind, the argument of Kashmiri leaders that in an independent Kashmir the minorities will be taken care of, and India does not need to worry about the minorities in Kashmir, falls flat on its face as their current action speak louder than their proclamations.

My goal here is not to vilify any leader or group or religion. My goal is to explore pathways for peaceful resolution of the conflict. But a peace process that ignores or undermines the realities will not succeed. While the leaders from the valley have genuine concerns which need to be addressed, their concerns must not be viewed as my group-your group or my religion-your religion prisms as it will defeat the very purpose of conflict resolution and the goal of realizing a peaceful Jammu and Kashmir. Did not B. R. Ambedkar counter the two-nation theory, and articulated that “Isn’t there enough that is common to both Hindus and Musalmans, which if developed, is capable of moulding them into one people? Nobody can deny that there are many modes, manners, rites and customs which are common to both. Nobody can deny that there are rites, customs and usages based on religion which do divide Hindus and Musalmans. The question is, which of these should be emphasized…If the Hindus and Musalmans agree to emphasize the things that bind them and forget those that separate them, there is no reason why in course of time they should not grow into a nation…”

This vision of communal peace as envisioned by Ambedkar must dawn on the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir. It was the same vision that inspired the jahajis in the Caribbean islands. It is up to the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir, and also up to the leaders of India and Pakistan, whether they want to be guided by a vision of inclusive of peace, in which all religions and groups live and thrive peacefully, or a vision of exclusive peace in which one group survives and prospers at the cost of the other group. In this direction, the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir need to do soul searching.

(This blog was published earlier in Times of India blogs: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/the-jahajis-social-contract-and-the-jammu-and-kashmir-conflict/)

Post-Flood Jammu and Kashmir: An Account

Kashmir in the Indian side is going to elections this month. The elections after two months of the devastating flood have raised many issues. The conflict in Kashmir (the legal name is Jammu and Kashmir) has gained attention as a violent conflict between India and Pakistan. Attentions on the internal dynamics are rare. A visit to various parts of Jammu and Kashmir brings forth divergent perceptions on the post-flood elections in the conflict-torn region.

The snow clad Pir Panjal mountain divides Jammu, predominantly Hindu, and Kashmir, predominantly Muslim. Further northeast Zojila mountain divides Ladakh, predominantly Buddhist, from the valley. Jammu and Ladakh are diverse in terms of their religious compositions than the Kashmir valley. Though majority Hindu, Jammu has significant number of Muslims and Sikhs. A trader in the border town, Poonch, was animated to explain the amicable relations among the people: “You will find Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs eating together, attending celebrations and funerals together.”

Further north, travelling through the Mughal road (used by the Mughal emperors to enjoy the salubrious climate of the valley during summer), one comes across rare hospitality. At the highest spot on the road, the travelers are offered free salt-tea and fried wheat flour. The spot also hosts the worship place of Muslim Saint Baba Abdul Karim. Descending to the valley at Shopian, one comes across beautiful landscapes. One also comes across security checks, reminding that not everything is fine. The horrific pictures of the past militancy become vivid.

 Floods devastated parts of the valley last September. One has to cross through broken bridges while driving through the Muslim-majority valley. The green valley has turned grey as a miasma of dust covered the trees and the houses. A local resident pointed his finger towards the wall of his office located near Iqbal Park in Srinagar, the summer capital. There was a mark of flood water at about eight feet. Some of the hotels in the city were closed as they were repairing for the coming tourist season. The first floors of many hotels were completely destroyed due to the floods. Dal Lake, a major tourist attraction, was in shambles with no tourists on the famed houseboats. The loss was terrible. I was, however, amazed to witness the spirit of the local people. They have recovered fast. Life has moved on.

A local resident told, “When the valley is recovering from the floods and people are collecting pieces from the tatters, conducting elections does not make much sense.” His argument was to shift the elections to a later date in order to concentrate all energy on the reconstruction of the valley. The government of India this time has exhibited alacrity in terms of providing assistance, with the Prime Minister visiting the valley twice within five months of coming to power. The policy to hold elections in time is perhaps motivated by two factors: one, pushing the schedule further into colder months will be harsh for the voters and second, the gap in elections may provide miscreants leeway to play havoc.

While the popular concerns over elections bears logic, the call of militant organizations to boycott elections does not. Regular elections over the past few decades are considered fair and that reduces the appeal of the militants. The militants see each action of the governments with suspicion and advocate violence. The moderate separatists have articulated the alienation of the people in the valley and some of them have joined the electoral politics. The establishment of an Al Qaeda branch in the Indian subcontinent and the appearance of Islamic State (of Iraq and Syria) flags in the valley have made the peace loving people and the administration jittery.

Some of the major issues that have surfaced in the electoral campaigns include: communalization of the state politics, dominance of dynasty, peace and development. The rising popularity of India’s nationalist party, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which also rules in New Delhi, has caused concern among the local parties. BJP’s policies have not gone well with some of the parties. BJP has not hidden its ambition to secure the majority of assembly seats. If the party wins the majority of seats, it will be for the first time in the history that a nationalist party will rule the region. More importantly, it will have far reaching implications for conflict and peace discourse. The local political parties like National Conference (NC) and People’s Democratic Party (PDP) are dominated by particular families. The NC, along with the Congress party, ruled the state for most of the time since 1950s. The PDP that came to power in 2002 for one term has become popular due to its people friendly policies. The current NC led government has been struggling with anti-incumbency factor.

The internal dynamics of Jammu and Kashmir are equally compelling as its external dynamics. The post-flood electoral politics provides ample testimony to this. An interaction with the local people gives the impression that the conflict has many subtler dimensions which need more attention. 

Kashmir Back in New Delhi’s Radar

Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, made his maiden visit to Jammu and Kashmir on 4 July 2014. While inaugurating the rail link from Jammu to Katra, the prime minister said, “Today Jammu and Kashmir will get both speed and energy. I am inaugurating this and a power project later today.” The prime minister’s emphasis on speed and energy is significant for peace and development in Kashmir.

The train from Jammu to Katra may symbolize speed but the deliberate choice of this term implies more. Modi is perhaps the first prime minister of India who visited the conflict-torn state even before completing two months in office. This is an indication of seriousness of the new government to prioritize Kashmir. Known for his pro-development initiatives and his passion for speedy implementation of development policies, Modi’s visit to Kashmir and emphasis on peace and prosperity in the region needs to be viewed in a new light. While the root causes of the conflict demands a deeper reflection and matching actions – understandably which will take more time and energy, the recent visit conveys the message that the development process needs to be expedited in the region. It should not be made hostage to rivalries between stakeholders to the conflict. The visit will add sinew to the scattered peace efforts initiated a decade earlier.

Modi appears determined to add energy to the peace process. At 63, he is younger than his predecessor. His pro-business policies may encourage the private business to invest in Kashmir, particularly in infrastructure projects such as roads and railways, and power. For sustainable development of the region, the participation of private players is an imperative. Violence has affected the prospects of development in the region, thereby discouraging private investment and creating obstacles against effective implementation of the developmental policies. Though people-centric development is not a sure shot for peace, it can help foster peace in a violence prone, and underdeveloped, region. It is indubitable that the protracted conflict needs more than development initiatives. But, undeniably, lack of development in the region has contributed to discontent and alienation in the region. This can not, and should not, be ignored.

Modi’s policies have demonstrated that he believes in speedy execution of even tough policies. The recent hike in rail fares by his government is such an example. His visit to J&K reflects the sense of urgency to address the complex issues the region has been seized with. Though his visit to the region was protested by the separatists groups in the region and his party’s demand for a debate on Article 370 (guaranteeing special status to the region) has drawn flak from many quarters, his government’s proactive nature in Kashmir is undeniable. Reports suggest his government is planning to evolve a framework to address the hitherto neglected issue of the return and rehabilitation of the displaced Kashmir Pandits. The displaced Pandits in the Kashmir valley left their native place in late 1980s with the onset of militancy. The extremist elements may not welcome the move as it will hurt their agenda of an exclusivist Kashmir (particularly the valley) though the majority of Kashmiri people including the separatists have welcomed the initiative.

It is no surprise that on the occasion of Modi’s visit, an umbrella group of radical organizations in Kashmir, Majlis Itihad-e-Milat, threatened to sabotage his government’s plan to rehabilitate the displaced Pandits. The issue is sensitive and it needs a proper assessment since any hasty resettlement may worsen the already fragile situation, particularly in the Kashmir valley. Akin to a speeding vehicle, Modi’s speed in Kashmir may go way ward if it does not follow the rules of road, i.e. overlooking the concerns of the local people and the issues that are deeply embedded in the conflict. The Chief Minister of the state, Omar Abdullah, in a veiled reference to India’s policies, argued, Kashmir cannot be won by money or muscle power. Abdullah’s utterance has a value as it reflects sentiments of sections of the people in the valley.

Modi’s attempts at simultaneously taking forward peace process and development programs in Kashmir will not be smooth. India has not only to address the concerns of the alienated sections within Kashmir but also to negotiate effectively with Pakistan. However, Modi’s peace and development initiatives have won him many supporters in and outside the region. Any sincere attempt, howsoever miniscule, to address the grievances of alienated people needs to be applauded. But, how far Modi led government in New Delhi will be able to sustain speed and energy and address the concerns of the people of Kashmir remain to be seen.

(Published in Transcend Media Weekly)