|| Satyameva Jayate ||

Dedicated to Bharat and Dharma

Is J&K really ready for change?

by · January 8, 2009

In an article that appeared on iVarta last week, Vivek Gumaste asked, “Hindu CM for J&K: Any Takers?”. Vivek mentioned how (emphasis mine):

Despite the perpetual debate about secularism and communalism, religious bigotry has not been the hallmark of Indian democracy. There was no widespread outrage or even a murmur of protest when a Muslim has been elected as the chief minister of predominantly Hindu majority states. Abdul Gafoor was the chief minister of Bihar which has a Muslim population of 16.5%. Maharashtra, a supposed bastion of Hindutva with a Muslim population of around 10% had no qualms about accepting Abdul Rehman Antulay as its chief minister. Other Hindu-majority states like Kerala, Assam and Pondicherry have also had Muslim chief ministers. It is this secular, impartial element that defines Indian democracy and which is the raison d”etre for its success.

However, if we look at Jammu and Kashmir, things appear to be a bit different. But before that, it is useful to be reminded that:

J&K is not a homogenous entity, either in its geographic distribution or religious composition. The Kashmir valley, the most vociferous of its components comprises barely 16% of its land mass compared to Jammu that accounts for 26% and Ladkah that makes up 58%. Even in terms of human population, the predominance of the valley is more a matter of hype than a fact based realty: Jammu has 45%, Ladakh 3% and Kashmir 52%.

Nevertheless, all the chief ministers of J&K since independence have come from the valley…Further, all the chief ministers of J&k have been Muslims as though conforming to an unwritten law that dictates this. Hindus constitute 33% of the combined population of J&K with Muslims making up 64% and the remaining 3% being accounted for by Buddhists, Sikhs and Christians. When Hindu- majority Maharashtra with a Muslim population of 10% can have a Muslim chief minister, can anyone have an objection to J&K with a Hindu population of 33% having a Hindu chief minister?

Vivek proposes a healing touch:

Better still if a Kashmiri Pandit can be made the chief minister. Would it not atone for the harsh treatments they have suffered and for the marginalization of Hindus as a whole? Will it not encourage the Pandits to return?…

Would it not be a shining example of Indian democracy and Indian secularism, if a predominantly Muslim state accepts a Hindu chief minister? This is a true test of Indian secularism and the composite culture of Kashmiriyaat that the Kashmiris boast of. I will be waiting for the answer.

However, I don’t even see a remote chance of this happening. Vivek may have to wait a very long time for a positive answer.

The point about not looking at Jammu & Kashmir as a monolithic entity was also picked up by Sushant K Singh and Rohit Pradhan (resident columnists at Pragati) who had this to say in their analysis of the elections:

The traditional approach of viewing the state as a monolithic entity must be replaced by one which recognises the heterogeneity across regions and demographics. It is also not necessarily a bad thing: Gorakhpur and NOIDA don’t vote on similar lines; why should Doda and Srinagar? It is more important to recognise that the rise of parties like the PDP and the BJP lends democratic voice to hitherto underrepresented groups and sentiments.

They added:

…in light of the events of the summer of 2008, (the new government) must address regional imbalances by reducing the overrepresentation of Srinagar in the affairs of Kashmir valley and the undue prominence of the Kashmir region in determining the policies of the state government. It should engage with other regions of the state and announce a time-bound plan for rehabilitating Kashmiri Pandits. The central government should institute measures that facilitate integration of Kashmir with the rest of the Indian nation—physically, financially and emotionally.

Is Omar Abdullah up to it? I have my doubts…although I would love to be proven wrong. 

Sadly the voice of Pandits is unlikely to be heard much in this Assembly…In the recent elections, not one Kashmiri Pandit got elected 🙁

Although I am as delighted as everyone else at the high turn-out in the elections, our challenges in the region are far from over…The Hurriyat is unlikely to sit still…although their claim to be the sole representative of the voice of the Valley is now questionable.  If you ask me, what should be the one bold move that this government can make, I would say: Declare “No More Dialogue” with the Hurriyat, the separatists or the “militants”.

***

P.S. For those who believe that the separatists struggle is “secular”, these words of Dukhtaran-e-Milat chairperson Syeda Aisiya (quoted in DNA India, 1st Dec, “box” accompanying this news story – “Give peace a chance, appeals Omar” by Ishfaq-ul-Hassan) might prompt some re-thinking:

“The separatist struggle needs a young and dynamic leader who is well versed wih Islamic teachings“

Curiously, other reports about her interaction with the media have no mention of these words…but one of them had this bit:

Aasiya said during elections the role of Government employees has been negative. “Despite being members of the Coordination Committee, the Government employees went on election duty. Nation will never forgive them,” she said.

Which “Nation”, I wonder?

Related Posts:

The forgotten “J” in J&K 

Time to say One Country, One Law

Tags:

B Shantanu

Political Activist, Blogger, Advisor to start-ups, Seed investor. One time VC and ex-Diplomat. Failed mushroom farmer; ex Radio Jockey. Currently involved in Reclaiming India - One Step at a Time.

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Arby K says:
    January 8, 2009 at 9:04 pm

    Another example of Jammu vs Kashmir. I’ve always wondered why Jammu & Kashmir have not been split into different states (Ladakh could be made a UT). This is the first time I’ve seen a J&K election and seeing the polarization of voting (which I understand has always been the case), it makes better sense to split the state for better administration.

    One more point to note is that in the last election, Jammu had elected a lot of independents, but this time chose to go with BJP. I wonder what these independents were able to bring about in the state during their tenure and whether BJP will be able to do justice to their mandate, sitting in the opposition.

  2. K.Harapriya says:
    January 9, 2009 at 10:16 pm

    Proving yet again the tolerance of Hindus and the fact that India will probably remain secular and democratic as long as Hindus are in majority. See what happens to Hindus in Muslim majority states and now Christian majority states of the North East–basically they are hounded out. I never used to agree with the general (supposedly Sangh Pariwar’s) contention that India was secular because it is Hindu not inspite of it–I think now that they are right.

  3. B Shantanu says:
    January 11, 2009 at 1:42 am

    Extracts from an article by TVR Shenoy: Congress may be repeating BJP’s error of 2003 (emphasis mine):

    …The truth is that the only parties to have gained from the Jammu & Kashmir assembly election are the BJP and the People’s Democratic Party, the former increasing its tally by 10 seats and the latter by as many as five. Between them, these two now have 32 MLAs in the assembly, a significant figure in a House with a total strength of just 87. In other words, the stage is all set for trouble in Jammu & Kashmir.

    The People’s Democratic Party used ‘soft secessionism’ as its plank during the polls. This has been the bane of the state, the theory that Jammu & Kashmir is somehow different from the rest of India, something that was at the root of Jawaharlal Nehru’s Kashmir policy. Yet at no point did either Pandit Nehru or any of his camp ever condescend to explain how and why the state is ‘unique.’

    Truth be told, I would agree to an extent — but only because every Indian state is unique. Kerala is not Tamil Nadu and Karnataka is unlike Andhra Pradesh even if plenty of North Indians club them all together as ‘Madrasis.’ But when was the last time that you heard any serious politicians from these states speculate about ‘autonomy,’ or ‘separate currency,’ or even a ‘separate Constitution for our state?’

    This is exactly the level of discussion fostered by sixty years of Nehruvian policy, where it is acceptable — even fashionable — in Kashmir to speak of ‘Kashmiris’ and ‘Indians’ as distinct people.

    The truth is that Jammu & Kashmir is ‘unique’ only in having a Muslim majority, a fact that you are not supposed to mention in ‘secular’ circles. If anything, I believe the secessionist leaders are more honest than the ‘secular’ hypocrites elsewhere.

    Here is what Syed Ali Shah Geelani, head of the Hurriyat Conference, said back in August 2008. His aim, he said, was ‘to impose an Islamic nizam in Kashmir. Islam should govern our lives, be it in our political thought, socioeconomic plans, culture, or the ongoing movement.’

    He helpfully added that ‘the creed of socialism and secularism should not touch our lives.’ And for good measure, ‘The question of imposing an Islamic rule is different. Why do people object to it? If America and India can have democratic rule, others can have Communism, why object to Islamic rule?’

    Appalling to say, almost everyone in the media ignored this vile rubbish, choosing to berate the people of Jammu instead during the Amarnath controversy. Syed Ali Shah Geelani actually openly admitted in the same interview that the ‘transfer of land is not the core issue for us;’ the secularists in Delhi could not bring themselves to be equally honest.

    In a nutshell, the roots of secessionism do not lie in some imaginary ‘Kashmiriyat’, this is the same uncompromising philosophy espoused by the Muslim League before 1947. And if anyone is asinine enough to believe that a National Conference-Congress coalition can douse these fires, well, think again.

    …The difference between the situation today and those of 1987 and 2002 is that the people of Jammu are now almost as upset as those in Kashmir. Anger at the Congress’s perceived pampering of Kashmiri secessionism led to voters turning to the sole alternative, the BJP, in Jammu. That could happen elsewhere too…”