|
Thursday, August 14
|
There is a facet of the turmoil in Jammu and Kashmir that is both puzzling and revealing: why did it take the government so long to begin talking to the protestors in Jammu?
Consider the facts. On July 31, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh invited the leader of Opposition L K Advani and Arun Jaitley for a discussion on internal security. After an anodyne exchange on terrorism, the prime minister requested the BJP to use its good offices to ensure that the 'blockade' of the highway to the Kashmir Valley is lifted. He had information that the separatists would use the disruption to press for accessing the Muzaffarabad road and demanding transit through Pakistan. This would create fresh complications and add an international dimension to the problem.
The prime minister's fears were warranted since this is precisely what the Hurriyat Conference leaders have begun demanding. Yet, for a full week, until the all-party meeting on August 6, the government sat back and watched the agitation in Jammu escalate steadily. At the all-party meeting too, the government's limited objective was to secure a unanimous resolution asking for the Jammu agitation to be called off. It was only after the BJP flatly refused that the government grudgingly agreed to begin a dialogue with the Sangharsh Samity spearheading the agitation.
Democracy is by definition quite tiresome. It involves constant engagement with saints, dreamers, rogues and normal people. In Jammu and Kashmir, successive governments have kept the door open for dialogue with even those who have questioned the state's inclusion in the Indian Union and supped with the ISI. The prime minister even travelled to Srinagar for a Round Table Conference which included the Hurriyat Conference - it is a separate matter the separatists didn't attend. So, why did the government hesitate to talk to those who have been on the streets for over a month, defying curfew, braving hardships and marching with the Indian tricolour? If the separatists are "our people", are the citizens of Jammu non-citizens?
The government's insensitivity arose from a mindset that has influenced official thinking, shaped the million-dollar conflict-resolution industry and permeated into the editorial classes. It was centred on the assumption that the Kashmir Valley was all that mattered in Jammu and Kashmir; Jammu and Ladakh were the loose ends that could be conveniently papered over. No one gave a damn when Ladakh protested against the demographic transformation and the threat to its identity and Jammu's long-standing complaints of discriminatory treatment were brushed aside with sneering condescension. All that mattered was the so-called 'hurt Kashmiri psyche' and Kashmiri 'alienation'. These labels of victimhood also became the cover for the most heinous political crime of independent India: the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus from the Valley. Today, this shameful expulsion has become such a footnote that Hurriyat leaders can brazenly proclaim their 'secular' credentials on TV talk shows, while the voices of Pandit protest are rubbished with the disdain reserved for Praveen Togadia.
The protests in Jammu are only partially about the 40 acres of land given to the Amarnath Yatra Shrine Board and then taken away after the PDP and the separatists raised the bogey of a demographic invasion and an assault on Kashmiri identity. Imagine the outcry if a Haj Terminal is peremptorily denotified on 'cultural' grounds?
Having had their feelings trampled upon for so long, the people of Jammu are demanding the right to live with self-respect and dignity in a state where only separatist blackmail seem to matter. The protests are an assertion of political empowerment and a plea to the rest of India to give nationalism a place in Jammu and Kashmir. Simultaneously, it is a fitting rebuff to the mindset that deems Omar Abdullah's eloquent insensitivity in the Lok Sabha an iconic assertion of cosmopolitan modernity.
|
|
Post your own comment
|
|
0
comment(s):-
|
|
|
The next general election looks certain to produce another hung Parliament. This will give many politicians a chance to cobble together coalitions and become prime minister. At a recent office discussion, I opined that Mayawati, head of the BSP, had the best chance.
Some youngsters in my office found this disturbing. One said, "If Mayawati becomes PM, won't that lower India's prestige? She is corrupt, crude and unprincipled. Doesn't India need a prime minister who is more presentable to the world?"
I explained that Mayawati was actually the most presentable candidate by far. If she becomes PM, India can claim to be the most empowering democracy in the world. Nowhere else has a woman from the bottom of the social and gender ladders risen to the top.
Women are oppressed in India, and Dalits are the most oppressed caste. For a Dalit to rise to the top would be miraculous. For a female Dalit to do so would be doubly miraculous. If Mayawati becomes prime minister, she will become a beacon of hope for oppressed people across the world.
Many middle class Indians want a prime minister from their class who is honest, principled and erudite; who can debate intellectual issues with the best in the world. Mayawati does not qualify. Jawaharlal Nehru had all these qualifications, and so is still admired. Yet, the world has seen many leaders from eminent families, blessed with wealth, status and foreign education. Never before has the world seen a Dalit woman rising to Nehru's level.
When Lalu Prasad Yadav visited Pakistan in 2003, he was a huge hit. Pakistanis had seen many Indian politicians from top families. They were utterly unprepared for and thrilled by this man who made a virtue of his humble antecedents, who used earthy language and rural aphorisms utterly unlike the sophisticated prattle of the chattering classes. No Pakistani of his class could ever aspire to political stardom, and for that reason Lalu was viewed as a superstar. Ditto for Mayawati.
Dynastic politics has enabled many women to rise to the top in the sub-continent. Consider Indira and Sonia Gandhi in India, Begums Khaleda and Hasina in Bangladesh, Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, and Srimavo Banadaranaike and Chandrika Kumaratunge in Sri Lanka. All became prime ministers because of their dynastic lineage.
Mayawati has no such lineage. She grew up in a Dalit shanty town, daughter of a lowly clerk. Most Dalit women don't dare speak in public. But Mayawati became a school teacher, spitting fire at public meetings. This brought her to the attention of Kanshi Ram, who was organising a Dalit political party. Kanshi Ram persuaded Mayawati to abandon her plans to join the civil service, and plunge into politics instead. The rest is history.
She may be a symbol of what democracy can achieve. Yet, her own behaviour within the BSP is utterly autocratic. She has mercilessly purged old comrades who dared dissent. She is seen as unprincipled since she has first teamed up with and then broken with every political party in sight, for short-term gains.
I once asked Kanshi Ram whether he was rightist or leftist. He replied, "Neither: I am opportunist." So is Mayawati. Her only guiding principle is to promote the interest of Dalits and herself. Everything else is negotiable. She started by castigating Brahmins as oppressors of Dalits. Yet, today she has stitched together a convenient alliance with those very Brahmins.
She can be crude, abusive and arbitrary, and so has antagonised all other parties. Yet, she remains politically attractive. When she allies with another party, her Dalit votes get transferred to the ally's candidates. No other party can guarantee this transferability. That makes her an awesome ally. An election jingle says it all: Auron ki majboori hai, Mayawati zaroori hai. (It's the misfortune of others, Mayawati is indispensable).
Like many other politicians, she faces several criminal cases, notably the Taj Corridor case. Other politicians seek to hide their ill-gotten wealth, but Mayawati glories in it. Her Dalit followers view her wealth as a symbol not of corruption but Dalit empowerment: she has beaten the upper castes at their own corrupt game.
Her self-declared assets rose from Rs 16 crore before the 2004 general election to Rs 52 crore before the UP election in 2007. This made her far richer than other chief ministers such as Prakash Singh Badal (Rs 9.2 crore), Karunanidhi (Rs 22 crore) or Chandrababu Naidu (Rs 21 crore).
She paid income tax of Rs 26 crore in 2007-08, making her one of the top taxpayers in India, in the company of film stars and industrialists. Mayawati has faced prosecution for having wealth disproportionate to income. She says the money represents gifts from well wishers. And a tax tribunal recently upheld her contention.
The world is not interested in the gory details. Politicians everywhere face sundry charges, and the world notices only if this results in political dismissal. So, if Mayawati becomes PM, the world will lionise her as a Dalit heroine. And it will lionise India as a democracy without parallel.
|
|
Post your own comment
|
|
0
comment(s):-
|
|
