Is Omar Abdullah Trotting Out an Old Chestnut?

Former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Omar Abdullah, in an interview to the Hindu, has among other things stated that, “autonomy is the bedrock of the National Conference’s identity. He also said that “India cannot take Pakistan-occupied Kashmir away from Pakistan” saying the Kargil war in 1999 provided an opportunity to cross the Line of Control but India preferred to respect its sanctity”. In terms of the former, Omar stated an alternative was sought to be created by the powers that be in New Delhi in the form of a political party. The reference was to the PDP.  

Insofar as Kargil is concerned, Omar appears to be erring in believing that the Indian state stopped because, ‘ it did not want to violate the sanctity of the Line of Control (LoC). This is fallacious logic. The Kargil war- in the nature of a mini war- was fought under the shadow of the nukes (nuclear weapons). This meant that the war corresponded to what has been termed as ‘limited war’-it could not , by its very nature, not be escalated beyond a certain point and had to be fought within a certain framework.  The logic of nuclear deterrence axiomatically entailed that  red lines could not be breached. (The red line here was the LoC). The Indian state then would not be reckless to go beyond the LoC. Moreover, the logic of the strategists from this side of the border appeared to have been bring Pakistan’s adventurism to the notice of the International Community (read the United States). Escalating the conflict first and then De-escalating the conflict and restricting it to the LoC served this purpose. Added up, all this worked to render the conflict localized.

Omar referred to the LoC and the Kargil war analogy was delineated in defense of his father, Farooq Abdullah.  The most substantive assertion of Omar Abdullah however pertains to his take on Greater Autonomy for the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It is to this that we will turn to.

Autonomy for the state of Jammu and Kashmir has over the years progressively been eroded. But from a mainstream perspective, autonomy appears to be the most prudent approach to the internal dimension of the conflict in and over Kashmir. The National Conference’s plank indeed has been autonomy but the question is what has the party really done about it? Yes, an autonomy resolution was tabled by the NC but nothing came out of it; it was shelved.  We will not go into speculation(s) over the reasons for the tabling of the Autonomy Bill but we will lay out the context. The Autonomy Bill was tabled in the year 2000. While the National Conference had a sizeable number of MLA’s in the legislative assembly, by and large , the conditions in the state of Jammu and Kashmir-especially the vale of Kashmir- were neither propitious for mainstream politicians nor the National Conference as such. The party, it could be stated , was coming out of the post militancy doldrums and its support base had considerably diminished. The Autonomy Resolution then was an elitist affair at that point in time-elitist in the sense that it was crafted by the party without having taken the masses into confidence. It could not have taken the people into consideration given that , the imaginary of most Kashmiris was , wedded to the Idea of freedom(azadi)- even though the sting had been taken out of militancy. Given this context, the National Conference’s negotiating leverage and strength was weak and limited. Why table the Bill then?

It could be speculated that the NC wanted to restore its flagging fortunes then. The maximalist position of Azadi could be blunted by the Autonomy Bill, may have been the premise of those who may have been instrumental in passing the Bill. But the GoI, would not even countenance this. The premise of the GoI then may have been its counterinsurgency successes in Kashmir. Militancy was waning; the National Conference was weak-both institutionally and in terms of mass support-; the separatists had been caged and Pakistan was desperate to revive militancy in Kashmir. The Centre then could afford to humor the NC and then reject the Autonomy Bill. The NC has trotted out an old chest nut but it had not worked. In the meantime, the state saw the emergence of the PDP (which Omar alludes to as being too much of a coincidence) with an agenda that was more radical (at least, rhetorically) than the NC.  The PDP exploited the fault lines of Kashmir- the rural urban and made a significant dent into the vote share and seat share of the NC. From then onwards, even though the National Conference, came to power in 2008, it was on a downhill trajectory in terms of both vote and seat share. The story of the party could be summed up in terms of intra party institutional inertia: it could neither consolidate nor hold its own- and encroachment on its territory by the PDP. This amounted to a pincer movement that caught the NC in a double bind. Now it would appear that the party is rethinking its approach and instead of sterile public statements imparting depth and width to its core ideological premise: Autonomy or Greater Autonomy. Is this a case of trotting out an old chestnut?

Maybe or maybe not. But if the party is serious about it, then it needs to be ready for a confrontational dynamic with the Centre.  Confrontation may cost allies or potential allies and even friends at the Centre but it would mean rebuilding and reconnecting with the people in Kashmir. There will be prices to pay but there will be rewards too. Long term sustainability and survival of a political party is contingent on mass support; not props-coalitional or otherwise. But key here is not only offering but working through and following up on an ideological premise-sincerely and robustly. Critics may point out that that if the Autonomy Bill was shelved when the party had a sizeable seat share, what now when it is reduced to 15 seats? First, fighting from the ramparts has its own advantages: risks can be taken and these cannibalized for greater utility.  There is also not the ‘burden’ of government and governance to be borne. Second, the context-especially the regional one- favors political activism of a robust nature. Both these factors and conditions then are propitious for the party.

But key here is sincerity of purpose and dedication to an idea and the will to follow it through. Will the National Conference muster all these? There are no clear cut answers to these. However, what can be stated with certainty is that if the NC merely ‘trots out an old chestnut’, then all will be gloom and doom for the party. This phrase means and refers to an idea that has been put forth and discussed so often that it ceases to be interesting or funny anymore. The party will not be able to cannibalize its legacy for long especially at a time when Kashmir is in transition- demographically and ideationally. It has to offer a more compelling narrative and follow it up vigorously, if for nothing else but its own future. This is not to root for the National Conference or dumb down any other party. Our motivating premise is welfare of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. From a mainstream perspective, any party-PDP or NC or a combination of both(oops!) – which works towards the welfare of the people of the state , peace and peace induced prosperity would be a departure from the past. The larger point is the welfare of the people of the state. The party that best serves the people will get the support of the people.  Kashmiris have long been victims of apathetic, power driven politics. It is about time this change. Let the best player- morally, politically and ethically-win!

Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group: Join Now

MONTHLY	Rs 100
YEARLY	Rs 1000
LIFETIME	Rs 10000

CLICK FOR DETAILS