news details |
|
|
| Ensuring a sense of physical and psychological security in J&K | | |
Luv Puri
" To accept that the man (Farooq Abdullah) will accept anything that you throw at him like some sort of grateful dog waiting for scrap is to add salt to the wounds you have inflicted", Omar Abdullah said in an interview to a TV channel much to the dismay of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The statement of then 32-year old Omar Abdullah in June 2002 demonstrated his political immaturity. Actually the statement was adding salt to the wounds of the already alienated people of Kashmir as it only proved that National Conference's alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was for getting family benefits rather than based on sound political reasoning and convictions.
Exactly six years later, Omar made a remarkable speech on the occasion of noconfidence motion in the Indian Parliament against the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government. His core argument was that India's interest and the Indian Muslim interest are the same. He used the platform of Indian Parliament to admit the political blunder of allying with the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) a few years back. "I made the mistake of siding with them [BJP] once on the question of Gujarat. I did not resign when my conscience told me to. And my conscience has still not forgiven me. I'll not make the same mistake again", thundered Omar Abdullah, president of National Conference in the Lok Sabha. This surely prompted Sonia Gandhi to take no time in deciding to give her party's support to Omar as chief minister for six years.The first important political lesson which Omar learnt was that any alliance of the ruling party of Jammu and Kashmir with any party at the centre has to bejustified before the people of the state.
Farooq Abdullah's logic that the ruling party of the state of Jammu and Kashmir had to support any ruling party at the centre lacked democratic justification. It was an insult to the people of the state and was also against the federal spirit of India. In the last few years Omar repeatedly invoked Sheikh Abdullah in his speeches.
Like his grandfather, he tried to appeal to the cultural pride of the Kashmiris. Sheikh symbolised Kashmiri identity and the main reason of his stature in the region was his knowledge of every dimension of it. He fought and then befriended India but during his lifetime his popularity among the Kashmiri masses remained intact. Sheikh understood and could articulate the political mood of the people of Kashmir. Some columnists want Omar to distance himself from Sheikh Abdullah's legacy and rather concentrate on issues of governance.
The right approach will be to see the past events from an objective perspective and at the same time adopt a stance which is relevant in the contemporary sense. Sheikh remains the pivotal link of Kashmir with the rest of India and any attempt to erase his memory is political suicide for Omar and Kashmir's relationship with India.
Sheikh remains the most misunderstood personality of the country. There is little objective analysis of the reasons as to what caused his friction with Nehru. Much of the analysis is either misinformed or is based on prejudices. While it will be easy to blame Sheikh Abdullah or Nehru for their actions or inactions, it is important to understand the times in which both lived.
The concept of nation-building had a different meaning then as the thrust was on a strong centre. Sheikh's desire to accommodate Kashmiri sub-nationalism in the Indian polity was viewed with suspicion. Likewise, Sheikh too had his own insecurities leading to his utterances which made Nehru and his colleagues become panicky, leading to Sheikh's infamous arrest in 1953.
Omar is a product of a confident India when the centre has no desire to encroach or meddle in the state's affairs. The demarcation between the centre and state authority has been well established by precedence.Therefore Omar should have no fear of the centre's encroachment of the state's turf and he can also confidently negotiate with the centre on the quantum of autonomy within the framework of the Indian Constitution. Realistically speaking, the centre will go to any length if any political package to the state can ensure permanent peace there and end the alienation of its people. Before initiating a political dialogue,Omar has to do what Sheikh could never do in his lifetime. Sheikh was easily the tallest leader in the Kashmir Valley of his times, but he failed to reconcile Kashmiri sub-nationalism with the rest of the state, namely, Jammu and Ladakh. The new chief minister will do a favour to the people of the state and even to his party if he is able to facilitate a process which brings people of the divergent regions closer to each other.
During the divisive Amarnath controversy, Omar correctly reached out to the people of Jammu by issuing a statement that he is not against the people of Jammu
to own land in the Kashmir Valley because as state subjects they enjoy the same rights as the people of the valley. It is this spirit which has to be carried forward.
Omar has correctly understood that the problem in the Kashmir Valley is political in nature. He should now apply the same yardstick to Jammu and Ladakh or even to scheduled tribe communities like Gujjars who are demanding political reservation. Jammu and Ladakh's perceived or real grievance is political and not economic; therefore it will be wrong to find economic solutions to their problems. The need is to have a five-tier setup in the state where the political, economic and social powers are devolved from stateto region to district to block to panchayat.
Once every region of the state rallies behind him, it will be far easier to negotiate a degree of autonomy from the centre which will be a step towards a viable solution to the Kashmir imbroglio. Only through a political solution to the state's problems, a sense of physical and psychological security amongthe people of the state can be ensured.
The author is a Jammu based journalist currently a Fulbright media fellow in New York City. Views expressed are purely his own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
