Kashmir – When History & Geography conflict!

While in school, I liked History as a subject. “King Ashoka planted trees and built lakes! Akbar founded and practiced his own religion – Din Illahi! And so on.  All these were interesting! But those days, my common refrain was, “What is the utility of us studying all these and remembering the years, the place and all that now? How is this going to help me in my life in the future?” While that was History, Geography was perennially boring. Remembering the names of countries, rivers, forests, mountains, cities, their latitudes and longitudes was all a torture. Little did I realise then, that the legacy of history has a long shadow on geography. Hence it becomes mandatory as students to get the perspectives right on History and Geography.  World over, eventually Geo-political conflicts are all about history!  Kashmir is no different.

Right since Independence, Kashmir has been a complex problem. Any proposal/s for solving this always come with insistence of it being a complex problem due to mistakes made by India in the past as per commentators. For many decades, the feeling in our country has been to maintain a status quo on Kashmir. In the wake of the last week’s dastardly attack in Pulwama on our security forces, it is clear that status quo is not the answer.

There are always different schools of thought around solutions ranging from military solution to political solution to diplomatic solution to combination of some of these or all. And frankly most of these have been tried in the past by different Governments of different parties when they got an opportunity to govern India. From Indira Gandhi to Rajiv to Narasimha Rao to Vajpayee to Manmohan Singh to now Narendra Modi, it is not for want of trying, this issue is not resolved. All have attempted in the past to crack the Kashmir code with sometimes the same or slightly different approaches. In my view, by and large all approaches have followed a contour that of keeping it within the constitution, respecting the sense of history and carrying that baggage. And the result of these efforts is there to see.

72 years since Independence means, 3 generations have rolled over, assuming a generation is defined by 25 years. This generation and the coming ones have no love lost for history or for historical narratives over Kashmir. They are concerned about the present and what the future entails. Hence to move forward on a long-lasting solution for Kashmir, the approach must entail shedding any historical baggage and looking into the future. What does this mean?

  • Jammu and Kashmir must be treated just like any other state of India. No special status whatsoever.
  • Scrap Article 370.
  • No Autonomous powers
  • Any law passed in the Parliament of India by default must be applicable to Jammu & Kashmir as well.
  • No Special constitution for Jammu & Kashmir
  • Allow business to be set up by non-Kashmiris in J&K just like in other parts of India.
  • Scrap Article 35A

And so on.

While I understand that it is not as simplistic as it sounds, we need to move in this direction and take firm steps.

Of course all this can work only under peaceful circumstances. There will be a huge uproar in the valley.  In the near term, the Government has to engage in multiple fronts in an effort to bring peace. That includes

Diplomacy – This Government has done a great job in working with relevant countries to isolate Pakistan. Continue the efforts to get more and more countries on board to tighten the noose.

Political – Within the country, take the main opposition parties on board on an agreed broad strategy. Get all parties to talk in the same wavelength not just in the aftermath of a Pulwama type attack but all the time. This will give a signal of India being one on this issue.  In the same token, do not rush to take credit as a party but give credit to all the parties in case of any successes.

Military – The 2016 Surgical strike was a great step. But it has not deterred Pakistan from carrying out the proxy war and stopping the activities of outfits like Jaish. One surgical strike in 2 years seemingly is not enough. We need to raise the cost for Pakistan by carrying our strikes in unpredictable frequency.

In the context of military intervention, we always encounter two refrains. One – that it can escalate into a fully blown war. Two – that a war between two nuclear capable countries is not at all desirable.  My point is, we have always been concerned of any military invention escalating into a fully blown war though Pakistan doesn’t seem to be concerned of the same while provoking us. For a change, why not make them feel concerned about a military escalation. Today, Pakistan is a failed and beleaguered state. Its economy is extremely frail. A fully blown war would only expose its vulnerability further. Except for China, which could come to its support militarily, Pakistan’s isolation is complete. Even for China, an economy which is stuttering today, ignoring India’s interests and siding with Pakistan will be a short term stupidity. So, eventually just like during the Kargil war, there will be more pressure mounted on Pakistan to mend its ways and take visible steps to stop cross border terrorism and take actions on outfits the same.

Economy – Raising the costs for Pakistan economically must be a continuous effort. Getting friendly countries to stop financial aid, labelling Pakistan a terrorist state, getting international sanctions imposed are all options on the table.

While these are ongoing efforts and I am sure Government must be engaged in all of this, the way to long lasting solution is to keep history aside and move forward. We hear that Narendra Modi has a penchant for leaving a lasting legacy. Solving the Kashmir problem could be his gateway to that. And for that History must give way to Geography, Economics and probably Chemistry! It’s time.

Advertisements

Time to end the Post Poll Alliance Plot!

Ever since H.D. Kumaraswamy became the Chief Minister of Karnataka through a post poll alliance between his party JD(S) and the Congress, he and Karnataka have been in the news, mostly for all the wrong reasons. From the wrangling over members of the cabinet, allocation of ministries and decision over waiving of farm loans, the so called “Unconditional” support of the Congress to the JD(S) has come with the “Conditions Apply” water mark! This is a coalition government formed after elections where, the Chief Minister in his own admission is at the mercy of the Congress which won more seats in the assembly and one that he fought a bitter battle against, during the elections. This has brought to the fore the moral legitimacy of a post poll alliance and the raison d’etre for this post!

This sort of a post poll arrangement is not the first and constitutional provisions remaining the same, will not be the last either. In the last few years, we have had similar post poll alliances being cobbled up in Maharashtra between the BJP and Shiv Sena and in Jammu & Kashmir between the BJP again and the PDP. In Bihar, we had the pre-poll alliance partners JD (U) and RJD coming together, winning, forming a government successfully only to fall apart in just under 2 years. The same JD (U) has now got into an alliance with the BJP, which it fought intensely against during the elections and is now running a coalition government! One glance at the political situation in all these states presents a similar and not so encouraging picture. Of an unease, under the veneer of partnership.  Of open differences in day-to-day functioning, even after coming to power with an understanding of a common minimum programme.

In Maharashtra, though the coalition government has been in power for more than three years now, there have been serious differences between the BJP and Shiv Sena on the vision, programmes and the idea of development.  The Shiv Sena opposes these in the media for public consumption while continuing to be a part of the very cabinet which takes these decisions. There cannot be a bigger deceit on the voting public than this!

In Jammu & Kashmir, the coming together of BJP and PDP was itself a very strange occurrence. Here were two parties who ended up with complimenting geographical presence (PDP in the valley and BJP in Jammu, Ladakh area) but with different ideological outlook to the state. Not surprising that decisions related to governance like handling of militancy and response to the ground situation,… were viewed through their respective ideological prisms and were subjected to pulls and pressures.  Not surprising again, that the alliance finally broke off last week!

In Bihar also, we keep hearing of murmurs of rumblings under the still surface of the Kosi River!

In all these states, it is indeed a legitimate democratic process that threw up hung verdicts which essentially reflected the mood of the public. And hence it may appear that the formation of a coalition government though based on a post poll alliance, is indeed a reflection of the rather muddled mandate. And in that sense one could argue that, democracy won at the end.

And as Indians we have still not forgotten the many short stint governments and Prime Ministers we had in the mid 90’s all thanks to post poll plots! Have we?

 If democracy is just about free and fair elections and installing “a” government as an end result of that process, probably, we should not grumble much about how governments function once they come to power. However, I do believe that democracy is not just about the election process but also about the outcome of the process as a reflection of the collective will of people as demonstrated by the election results and the ensuing governance.

From that point of view, is a post poll alliance, where 2 or more parties who contested and fought against each other bitterly before the elections come together and form a coalition government, fair? Is that arrangement a fair representation of the mandate or the collective will of the people? Is it not fooling the voters if, the party against whom you raised a stink over issues like corruption during the election campaign is now part of your government, for example? And there are more legitimate questions like these.

In a pre-poll alliance, parties “come together” probably with a common ideological plank or against a common enemy or some common promise or premise. This is transparent to the people when they go to vote. In a post poll scenario, parties “cobble up together” an alliance.  And there is a big difference between the two!

Apart from the moral issue of a post poll alliance government going against the will of the people, the other obvious issue with it is the thriving of “resort politics” – a phrase today associated with deal cutting and other “Direct Benefit Transfers”! Today, we are a witness to all this happening before us but have to be silent because post poll alliances are deemed acceptable under the constitution! Even the Supreme Court expressed its inability to term post poll alliances as invalid!

One of the main argument in favour of post poll alliances is that, today the constitution doesn’t dis-allow such an arrangement. Has the time not come to look at reviewing this aspect of it and make amends?

One of the other vocal arguments that is used to legitimise post poll alliances is saving public exchequer on expenses over another round of elections. For parties who raise this, it is just a convenient argument to come to power somehow.  In the case of a hung verdict, it is clear that the people are not convinced of the credentials of a single party or a pre-poll alliance. Giving an opportunity to a post poll alliance is the biggest charade that can be inflicted on the public.

If one looks at all angles, post poll alliances don’t check any of the boxes in public’s favour in a democracy. And it’s time as a country we have a debate around it and look at other alternatives of handling a hung verdict than the post poll plots which parties draw up.

Toon courtesy: Satish Acharya