Shen Tong, who was active in the Chinese students’ movement for democracy and who managed to escape secretly to the United States after the brutal June 04, 1989 crackdown, says there were many reasons for their failure – the major one being that they lost the sight of their goals. “Our original plan was to return to the campuses, regroup, and continue our movement through broadcasting stations, the newspapers, and the tremendous support we had gained from the people. But the movement got out of control… Rather than moving to achieve something positive, the students started merely to react. If government did nothing, the students remained in the square doing nothing. If government made some statement, or did something, then the students proposed another hunger strike. Some students even proposed to set themselves on fire in protest; for no constructive reason. We prevented this.”
From the Tong’s statement, one could easily make out that success of any tactic actually lies in its ability to seize and maintain the initiative – to keep the heat on. In politics, nothing can be allowed to happen by default. Politics, it’s said, is like playing chess, where a player always thinks not just one or two but several moves ahead, planning each move vis-à-vis probable and possible counter-moves of the adversary. Similarly, the novelty of a tactic, its newness and, as such, ability to catch adversary unawares, is one of the sure recipes for success, as much as a strategy or a move that repeats itself repeatedly and then drags on for long to become a drag, is a sure reason for failure. Gene Sharp says one of the key issues involved in the conduct of non-violent action is the clarity of objectives, the required discipline and leadership, the importance of seizing and maintaining the initiative, and the need for tactical actions to support strategic objectives. He adds a rider about the pitfalls of relying on narrow range of methods: “The cost of neglecting careful strategic calculation is very high.”
Who knows this better than the people of Kashmir who have actually bore, and paid this extremely high cost through their blood and everything else – because there were (and still are) no “strategic calculations”, and because those calling the shots here lacked (and still lack) the educational and intellectual capital as well as the political acumen to make such calculations! What is really unfortunate is that all those people in the civil space, who call themselves “intellectuals” and “thinkers”, and whose self-adulatory and praise-seeking opinion pieces have ensured their post-retirement relevance, too have perfected the art of saying what they know will appease and please a particular brand of politics. They never dare showing mirror to those who they feign as identifying with even when they miss no opportunity of targeting another set (read sect) of Kashmir politics. Even as the mainstream political groups here have started preparations for fresh elections, though Election Commission of India is yet to take a final call on whether to hold Assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir before or after the Lok Sabha election due in May next year, this breed of opinion-makers has already started making noises about election boycott.
The argument here is not for or against people’s participation in the election process – it is for them to make their own choices. However, what is stressed is that these have to be informed choices arrived at only after duly considering and weighing the pros and cons of each option. If the popular choice is for boycott, people will still have to look into – and do some explaining – as to how the same is going to be of any help to the “popular cause”. Similarly those who are for participation in elections will have to come forward on how participation is going to help solve issues and concerns of the people — including the political ones. Both sides must identify and define different strategic objectives of each choice. And may be some thinking must also go into weighing the strategic use of NOTA (none of the above) option. Could it be used to make a loud and resounding political statement in a democratic manner?
There have been calls and campaigns for boycott previously too. Did people heed them? Did they work? If yes, what are the popular gains? These questions need answers. People have also participated in the elections despite boycott calls. What has been the net achievement in lieu of participation? How has casting votes helped in furthering people’s “cause”, their interests – political, economic, social, and the like? These questions must also be explained. Let there be a healthy and constructive debate this time round, and not just unexplained clamor for each choice.
