To save Kashmir, kick out Geelani
Let’s
start first by admitting that from the start BJP joining hands with the PDP to
form a government in Jammu & Kashmir is a big blunder. Just for the sake of
securing a few puny ministerships, had the party opted to be in the opposition
and allowed a combination of the PDP, the National Conference and the Congress
party to take over in Srinagar, very soon public opinion would have turned against
such an alliance, and in the mid-term elections that would almost certainly
follow, the BJP may have secured just enough seats in Kashmir to come to power
on its own. With every year that passes, the attractiveness of Pakistan as an
alternative to Indian statehood is getting reduced, so much so that apart from
Syed Ali Shah Geelani and a few others loyal to the salt which nourishes them,
most of those whose occupation it is to protest against the rest of India, work
on the basis the desirable option is a level of autonomy sufficient to ensure
total Wahhabisation. Such individuals are not satisfied with the partial
Wahhabisation that has been implemented in Jammu & Kashmir since the
Congress party allowed Sheikh Abdullah in 1947 to take over as Prime Minister,
later on being turfed out, but thereafter displacing secular predecessors, who,
had they continued, would have ensured the extinguishing of the unreal hope
that the state could, through unrest or rebellion, win an overwhelmingly
Wahhabised governance structure that would be independent of the Central
government in every particular barring the formal.
Unfortunately
for the people of the state and for the rest of the country, the 15% or so of
the population that are partial or total Wahhabis is the only segment taken
into account by both the media as well as the Central government. (fell extremely
sad and outraged at the Modi Govt. for excluding the kashmiri Pandits who too
are a party and rightfull owners of the valley) Of course, such a disastrous
concession to a fundamentally undemocratic group has since been justified on
the grounds first of “secularism” and now on the grounds of “pragmatism”. The
BJP argues that its presence in the state government ensures that the state
“does not slip into anarchy”. The Ministry of Home Affairs, which is
historically known for neglecting societal sores until they turn cancerous,
apparently believes that the presence of a BJP Deputy Chief Minister and
miscellaneous ministers from the party is sufficient to ensure that Srinagar
keep to the path of fealty to the Constitution of India. The MHA has,
therefore, outsourced to J&K BJP ministers its job of ensuring adherence
within the ruling structure of Kashmir to the political and governance
principles ensuring the unity of this country. This despite the fact that from
the start, these necessary principles have been ignored by the Wahhabis and
their backers within the inner recesses of the governance mechanism of the
state. Despite having only a slightly higher number of seats than the BJP, the
PDP has arrogated to itself about 90% of the effective powers of the state
government, of course in the name of “secularism” and “pragmatism”. Such an
abdication of responsibility by the country’s ruling party would, it was
calculated, “heal tensions and cool down passions”. In fact, the reverse has
taken place.
According
to the Muftis and the Abdullahs, the Wahhabis are the only segment of J&K
society that need “healing”. The fact is that it is the rest of the population
which has been ravaged by this medieval force, and which needs the sympathetic
attention and “healing”, which till now has been denied by successive governments
that have competed with each other to grovel at the doors of the Wahhabi
grandees. None of these seem to do any work barring periodic calls to create
chaos, although all of whom seem to be very well off, with the Income-Tax
authorities clearly not looking their way. More than verbal tributes to Shyama
Prasad Mukherjee, what is needed is to ensure that the warnings of that
prescient leader be taken seriously and at least some of his prescriptions get
followed in Jammu & Kashmir, especially autonomy from Srinagar for Jammu
and Ladakh. It is striking that the many politicians who swear by secularism
seem oblivious of the fact that the principle has been absent in J&K since
Jawaharlal Nehru decided that even accession to India was less important than
ensuring the primacy of Sheikh Abdullah over the state. Indira Gandhi persisted
with her father’s policy of coddling the Sheikh, while Rajiv briefly rebelled
against one wing of the family, that led by Farooq Abdullah, in the process
supporting a closet Wahhabi, G.M. Shah, who accelerated the process that saw
the state plunging into terror within years of his rule. The Muftis too believe
that the only segment that needs coddling is the Wahhabi fringe. Such
persistent appeasement of a fringe should be halted. Instead, what is needed is
to put on a flight to Lahore sans passport Geelani and those who swear loyalty
to Pakistan. Such firmness may cause short-term problems but in the longer
term, it will ensure the stability and secularism in Kashmir that has been denied
the state till now because of a consistent policy of appeasing the fringe at
the cost of the bulk of the population of the state while the pundits are left
in the lurch.
