Author: Swapan Dasgupta
Publication: The Telegraph
Date: August 8, 2008
URL: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080808/jsp/opinion/story_9663131.jsp
Introduction: In the long run, the unrest
in Jammu can't be bad for India
A fortnight ago, the very personable Omar
Abdullah was being fêted in the drawing rooms of metropolitan India
for his brief but passionate speech on the trust vote in the Lok Sabha debate.
It is understood that the prime minister had personally requested the Speaker
to not guillotine the debate until Omar and Asaduddin Owaisi, the MP for the
All India Majlis-e Ittihad al-Muslimin, had been given an opportunity to speak.
The idea was to convey the message that Muslims were with the United Progressive
Alliance in endorsing the nuclear agreement and rejecting the 'communal' politics
of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
Omar's speech, particularly his robust assurance
to Hindus to safeguard the Amarnath yatra at all costs but to simultaneously
protect his own land from alienation, worked wonders. The liberal, middle-class
Hindu, always uneasy with the god thing, saw in the National Conference leader
the culmination of the long search for the Nationalist Muslim who was 'just
like us'. The impressionable editorial classes elevated Omar to dizzying heights
and his speech was telecast ad nauseam and painted as the best thing since
Barak Obama bared his angst.
One man's nectar, or so it is said, is another
man's poison. Given the initial media indifference to what is now being billed
as the "Hindu Intifada", we shall never know the extent to which
Omar's oratory played a role in inflaming passions in Jammu. However, if those
who have travelled frequently to Jammu over the past month are to be believed,
Omar's defence of the UPA was a significant factor in spurring Hindu opposition
to the iniquity of the Jammu and Kashmir government. Along with the mass protests
in the Kashmir Valley that led to the marginalization of the Amarnath Yatra
Board and the cancellation of the 40-hectare grant to the shrine board, it
confirmed the belief that Hindu-dominated Jammu could not hope to get a fair
deal from Srinagar until it resorted to Direct Action. The neglect of Jammu,
it was clear, was inextricably linked to the dread of separatist blackmail
in the Valley.
The perception may, arguably, be flawed and
could well be the outcome of political manipulation - the facile explanation
for anything that reeks of a sectarian divide. However, it is undeniable that
the newly-appointed governor, N.N. Vohra - a veteran player in the never-ending
'Kashmir dialogue' - seemed inclined to believe it was politically prudent
to yield to the preposterous suggestion that the transfer of 40 acres would
usher in a "demographic transformation" of the Valley. In the minds
of the play-safe bureaucracy, it was better to give the separatists and the
near-separatist People's Democratic Party of Mufti Mohammed Sayeed a short-term
victory than risk another round of unrest in the Valley. The corresponding
belief was that Hindu disquiet over being trampled upon yet again would be
ephemeral, and not lead to a law-and-order problem. After all, or so it was
felt, a community that had meekly stomached the ethnic cleansing of the Pandits
from the Valley, would easily reconcile itself to an unfavourable administrative
order.
For the past four decades, and particularly
since the resumption of separatist violence in 1989, successive governments
have taken Ladakh and Jammu for granted. The prolonged agitation in Ladakh
in the Nineties against discriminatory treatment and shifting demography was
never the subject of agonized seminars and international conferences. Nor
for that matter did the expulsion of Pandits from the Valley lead to any soul-searching.
On the contrary, this disgraceful violation of the human rights of a religious
community was sought to be explained in bizarre conspiracy theories and steadfast
denial.
No one, apart from the BJP, made the plight
of Kashmiri Hindus an issue. When the BJP did do so, it was, predictably,
greeted with the sneering condescension reserved for outlanders. The custodians
of India's conscience equated Jammu and Kashmir with the majority community
of the Kashmir Valley. Jammu, Ladakh, Hindus and Buddhists were the disconcerting
loose ends that had either to be snipped off or put under dust covers. It
didn't pay to be unwaveringly nationalist in Jammu and Kashmir - a lesson
that was not lost on discerning politicians in the Valley.
The temptation to see the month-long agitation
in Jammu as some sort of a cynical BJP and sangh parivar show is overwhelming.
Apart from justifying the crackdown, restrictions on the media, and the peremptory
ban on text messages, and stoking the subliminal Hindu-phobia of the cosmopolitan
classes, it is calculated to put pressure on the BJP leadership to somehow
lower the temperature of the movement.
Last week when the prime minister met L.K.
Advani and Arun Jaitley, he had one compelling request: allow highway traffic
to and from the Valley. A prolonged blockade, it was argued, would give separatists
the pretext to demand that the Kashmir Valley better consider using the Muzaffarabad
route to transport perishable items. As it is, the quasi-separatists in the
PDP have been demanding something called "dual sovereignty" which
includes open borders and dual currency. Yet, until the BJP representative
suggested it at the all-party conference last Wednesday, the government had
no plans to engage the leaders of the Sangharsh Samity in any discussion.
A government that believes murderous Naxalites
are "misguided" boys has no time for those registering their protest
with the national tricolour. Yet, the BJP's role in taking the movement in
Jammu to such a pitch has been overstated. Before the movement began, the
BJP was not the pre-eminent political party in Jammu; the Congress had a majority
of seats in the dissolved assembly. The BJP was no doubt the only national
party to highlight the Amarnath yatra issue, but over the weeks, the movement
has acquired a momentum of its own. How else is it possible to explain the
mass violations of curfew by women and children chanting "Bom Bom Bhole"?
To have the resilience to face up to the disruptions of this magnitude calls
for phenomenal community solidarity which no political party can ensure.
The unrest in Jammu has ceased to be a movement
centred on the organization of the Amarnath yatra and the land lease. It has
assumed the character of a nationalist uprising - symbolized by the lavish
use of the Indian tricolour in all demonstrations. The movement began as a
reaction to the government's capitulation to the separatists, gathered momentum
as a larger protest against the perceived discrimination of Jammu by Srinagar
and has now evolved into an upsurge for political power.
The agitators may be momentarily pacified
if the governor is changed, the Amarnath Yatra Board revived and some extra
facilities (short of outright acquisition of the 40 acres by the board) given
to pilgrims. However, its long-term impact will be felt during the assembly
elections scheduled for October. Having been kept out of the power equations
in Srinagar, Jammu will be seeking its place under the sun. This implies that
the National Conference will perforce have to come to terms with a party that
speaks for Jammu, if it wants to rule from Srinagar again.
In declaring that he would never again commit
the "mistake" of allying with the BJP, Omar secured many secular
brownie points. But in his grandstanding, he may have triggered a chain of
events that could make such an alliance unavoidable in the future.
To some, the upsurge in Jammu looks like dangerous
communal brinkmanship. It could, however, also be viewed as the re-assertion
of nationalism in a state where it is both fashionable and lucrative to preach
secession. In the long run, this can't be bad for India.