Kashmir is a complex political geography. Assumptions that work well elsewhere fail when used to decode political developments in the Valley. But there is one rule of thumb that has proven to be quite durable. A politician’s “street capital” in the Valley can be fairly accurately assessed by how hard they are being pursued by the Indian state.
In the recent Lok Sabha elections in Jammu and Kashmir, this aphorism underlined its durability when jailed “Pak-sponsored separatist” Engineer Rashid pulled off a shock victory. No one gave Rashid a chance against his more storied and one daresay privileged rival, ex-CM Omar Abdullah of the National Conference (NC). Rashid won on the slogan “jail ka badla vote se” (avenge jail through the ballot). The fact that he was perceived to be a somewhat implacable enemy of the Indian state meant that was doing “something right”, at least in the voter’s imagination. Something more than Abdullah who was also under a desultory “house arrest” in the days after the abrogation of Article 370 by the Narendra Modi-led NDA government at the Centre.
In the Valley, Rashid’s victory was immediately assessed as an expression of Kashmir’s yearning for greater political autonomy that was eroded by the abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35(a).
Albeit alarmed, the Centre still took consolation from the knowledge that voters in record numbers turned up to vote. The BJP in particular cited the turnout as underlining a renewed belief in the Modi-led Indian state’s capacity to accommodate the aspirations of the once estranged Kashmiri people.
Now, three months later, as the first assembly polls in a decade are being held in Jammu and Kashmir, several more Rashids from “separatist” ranks have thrown their hat into the ring.
Most are now campaigning on the promise to undo the abrogation of Article 370 and 35A, to free political prisoners from jail, renew cross-border trade with Pakistan and some other demands associated with the separatist politics of yore.
Anticipating competition from “separatist” debutantes, the more mainstream parties like the National Conference and the Peoples Democratic Party have also come out with arguably “soft separatist” manifestos.
The prospect of many Rashids sitting in the legislature has elicited predictable views.
The advocates of a “soft touch” approach to Kashmir are welcoming the desire among “India sceptics” in the Valley to move towards the mainstream. This ecosystem is excited by the prospect of what they term the “broad basing of democracy” in the union territory.
Unionists or integrationists see the entry of “separatists” into the poll fray as an insidious attempt at state capture from within. What if the newly minted legislators pass a resolution in favour of restoring the much more tenuous pre-1953 status for Jammu and Kashmir? What message would such a radical statement of separatism send to the world? What if the legislators use the resolutions to rally their supporters to come out onto the streets demanding the real thing?
Above all, would the raising of such “ultra vires” demands by the people’s representatives still be regarded as a win for constitutional democracy?
This perhaps is the moot question.
Comments
0 comment