Category: WIDE ANGLE

Sitting by a campfire listening to a song of Bushmen somewhere deep in the Kalahari Desert, an American Anthropologist William Ury thought he recognized a word or two… When the lyrics were translated to him, it turned out that the song was: “Mama, please buy me an Appollo Eleven…” Far from the urban civilization, these Bushmen too had somehow heard about the first unmanned mission to the moon. Nomads to the core as Bushman are, yet they aspired to wander out in space. This is the critical change brought about by the Knowledge Revolution. It has extended the network outwards so much so that entire humanity has been woven into one interactive and interdependent global unit.

There are, as the anthropological evidences suggest, more than fifteen thousand ethnic groups on the planet. However, it is for the first time since the origin of human species that virtually all of humanity’s tribes are in touch with one another. And nowhere is the web of interdependence more obvious than in the daily economic life. Every day hundreds of millions of people from opposite parts of the planet cooperate, directly or indirectly, with one another in the global marketplace. While global trading networks have existed for centuries, today’s ties operate on a far greater scale. Such is the enormity and essence of this global interdependence today that few human beings can survive anymore without drawing on the worldwide web of economic links.

While the networks of interdependence are on an ever-expanding spree, every day besides the economics even the political and social networks too keep on spreading out encompassing more and more people, and triggering changes in social, political and economic patterns and hierarchies. The pyramidal institutions that had a centralized authority with all power accumulated in it, are steadily giving way to horizontal networks held together through communication and decentralized initiative of countless individuals and organizations. Humanity, says Ury, is weaving a “boundaryless web” something that Marshall McLuhan had predicted over half-a-century ago. Indeed it is the fallout of this growing interdependence that world has seen emergence of various forms of political associations that cut across the physical and geographical as well as ideological boundaries. Europe, a collection of warring states at the start of the twentieth century, saw itself confederated into European Union at the century’s end.  NAFTA in North America, Mercosur in South America, ASEAN in Southeast Asia represent other regional efforts to integrate.

SAARC in South Asia too is a similar initiative, however, unfortunately Indo-Pak hostilities have held the future of this regional grouping hostage. Unlike other groups, SAARC countries, India and Pakistan in particular, are far from being integrated. They are yet to evolve ways and means to negotiate through the trust-deficit plaguing their relationships. There are issues about boundaries in land and in sea, there are problems of water sharing and to cap it all there is the dispute over Kashmir. In the absence of sincerity of purpose to resolve these issues, entire region remains ever-volatile, always a potential flashpoint of a catastrophic war, not to talk of the two countries being economically and politically integrated.

“What happens if another group comes to hunt on your land?” anthropologist Ury says he once asked Semai tribesmen. “When other groups are hungry, we let them hunt on our land as if it were theirs,” they replied. “If someone in the other group goes hungry, the spirits of the forest will be unhappy and someone might fall sick and die, and we would then be responsible.” The Semai perceive their world as an independent one in which the unmet needs of the neighbour will affect them personally. For them enabling their neighbours to meet their needs is simple common sense. Hats up to Semai; they are way too civilized and wise than the Indo-Pak leadership, for they are gifted with the kind of common sense which seems so uncommon with India and Pakistan.

Those who think they know everything and believe with complete certainty that they possess the right knowledge and theirs is the ultimate wisdom of thought and action, are dark inside. Now if this is the trait of an ordinary individual, a commoner, it may not affect many beyond his or her self, and may be immediate family and friends. But if a political leader is infested with the disease, one can only imagine the ramifications – it will darken the world outside with cruelty, pain and injustice.

Humanity’s hope lies in the acceptance of the great law of change. Times change, and with it changes everything. It is general understanding of the principles of change that provides clues of rational action and an awareness of realistic relationship between political action and its desired goal. Even if the desired goal may remain static over a period of time, yet the changing times do influence and alter the requirements of means employed for reaching that goal. Indeed no other factor is as important as time in deciding what means are to be employed at which time for a desired political affect.

So a political leader, instead of getting stuck in rigid dogma, will have to prove flexible enough to ensure requisite maneuverability to his or her politics. This is not to say that such a political leader has to be rudderless; instead the strategic flexibility only ensures better sense of direction and adequate hold over the flow of events. Those who are sure about their swimming skills and know how to control and maneuver in a given situation while riding the waves can afford plunge into the sea. Those who rely on and simply resign their fate to the flow of waves, will prove imprudent even going near water!

History is witness that all societies have, historically, discouraged and even penalized ideas and writings that threatened the status quo of thought and action, in politics as well as other spheres of human activity. No wonder when it comes to the literature on the realities of political and social change, we are walking a veritable barren desert.

Kashmir certainly has not been any exception in this regard. Here also the ideas, leave aside writings, that threatened the political status quo of both ruling and those not-ruling-but-wanting-to-rule as well as all others on either side and in-between the two, were not only discouraged but also pressured and persecuted. No wonder then Kashmir has been made into a land of ‘agents’, for everybody is framed this or that way so much so that everyone seems somebody’s ‘agent’. So where is the space for a rational and objective discourse?

As long as the rational thinking despite its objectivity and strength of argument continues to be labeled as unpatriotic, subversive, spawned in hell, no one would dare think objectively. Even if some do, they won’t spell it out. And those who do, do so at their own peril. God bless those ‘mad’ people who dare say what they feel must be said!

Political promises alone don’t suffice the need, certainly not in Kashmir which has been torn apart by decades of conflict – a civil war like situation. Any government, whatever its composition and complexion, as some important studies conducted into the conflict situations world-over indicate, here will be confronted with two major challenges. First, Kashmir has a high risk of conflict, and so a key objective of the policy must be to reduce this risk as rapidly as possible. Second, given that it has inherited a severe social and economic decline, another key objective is to restore economic and social conditions.

The high risks of further conflict reflect both risks inherited from prior to the conflict as well as the risks caused by the conflict. Simply put, in Kashmir context it will mean the risks that were there prior to 1989 when armed insurgency formally surfaced. As the history stands witness, the institutional break-down in the state during mid-to-late-eighties, rampant corruption and unaccountability in both politics and bureaucracy, and above all the unresolved political questions — the intra-state dimension of the state’s relationship with New Delhi as well as the inter-state aspect of Kashmir being a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan duly acknowledged by the international community, comprise the risks inherited from prior to 1989 era.

Unfortunately, despite all the bloodshed and mayhem of the intervening years as well as the political pledges that have followed all along, and are being made with ever-increased audacity even today, not much has been done to take care of and neutralize the actual risks. In fact the situation seems to have only graduated from bad to worse. Corruption and unaccountability have grown and multiplied so much so that the state continues to figure among the most–corrupt states.

Government’s institutions and systems, including the all-important correction systems, remain as ineffective as they were prior to 1989. Be it the corrupt governance systems or the lethargic judicial system, access to justice continues to remain a distant dream for the majority. On the inter-state front too, the relationship between India and Pakistan is yet to out-grow the trust deficit that plagues it. Needless to say that they are as far away from addressing the questions pertaining to Kashmir as they were prior to the break-out of armed militancy here.

Common sense is that if a place faces an unusually high risk of conflict from a particular source, it should devote particular attention to reducing that risk. Now it is for the governments here as well as in New Delhi to look if they are giving the kind of attention to the factors that comprise the major risks and keep Kashmir eternally caught up in the conflict trap. Not only are the pre-conflict factors crying for attention but the post-1989 ramifications too — the risks born out of the conflict during past thirty years – also need to be tackled and reduced as quickly as possible. As of now a great deal is has been said by the political establishment, but whatever has been said is neither reflected in the policy nor is it visible in the actions on the ground.

Recall that old story of a man who converts to Catholicism and decides to emulate as far as possible the life of a saint — St. Francis of Assisi. Filled with the zeal of a convert, he withdrew his life’s savings from the bank and took this money out in $5 notes (bills). Armed with his bundle of $5 notes, he went down to the poorest section of New York City, and every time a needy looking man or woman passed by him he would step up and say, “Please take this”.

According to a ‘New York Times’, report, this gentleman attempting to “live a Christian life” and emulate St. Francis Assisi could do so for only forty minutes before being arrested by a Christian police officer, driven to Christian hospital by a Christian ambulance doctor, and pronounced ‘non compos mentis’ by a Christian psychiatrist.  A person who was only trying to be a good and kind human-being, being described as “not of sound mind” and thrust inside a psychiatric hospital, serves a very important lesson in communication — that even kindness is beyond the experience of a kindness-professing-but-not-practicing population.

This is exactly what happens here when common people are bombarded with huge claims and boastful assertions by different political formations, who keep on seeking people’s support on the basis of what they think is their contribution and should be considered by the people. Since the claims that regularly dot the political speeches of political leaders as well as their promises of public good and welfare are beyond the experience of common masses, these speeches are no better than verbal garbage for most of the people here.

Like the New York’s Catholic convert, whenever these political leaders try and approach common masses in a moralistic way, it is outside their experience. People may no doubt attend public meetings and listen to or read their political speeches, at least to see what their morality-professing-but-not-practicing political leaders have said, but in reality they simply brush them aside, virtually telling themselves: “Ah, the man is nuts, he thinks he can fool us like this all the time…!”

Not a single day passes without the mainstream politicians virtually begging for people’s support, although they do so with such a visible arrogance that one gets a feeling that they have taken people way too for granted. While some have made so-called ‘Kashmiriyat’ subservient to their own political survival, others claim that people’s welfare and dignity and honour are closely linked to a particular group’s political survival. So looking at the political speeches which are growing shriller by the day, one gets a feeling of brazen public display of political gimmickry and debauchery.

Political speeches on a general basis without being fractured into specifics of public experience become rhetoric and carry very little meaning. This is exactly the problem when political leaders make boastful moral claims as the same are beyond the experience of the common masses. Besides, the popular experience also informs us that these speeches, promises, pledges and claims mean nothing much. These boastful claims of political leaders that they will fight for and secure people’s rights, as also as their (leaders’) morality is beyond the experience of the people. This needs to be understood by the state’s political establishment, who are the practical interface between the state and the people.

A little research into the word ‘sacrifice’ reveals that it means offering of something, animate or inanimate, in a ritual procedure which establishes, or mobilizes, a relationship of mutuality between the one who sacrifices (whether individual or group) and the recipient — who may be human but more often is of another order – God. But in any case, howsoever one prefers to define it, there is always an element of VOLUNTARISM in the act of sacrifice, ‘a voluntary act of deliberately following a course of action that has a high risk or certainty of suffering, personal loss or death’. No wonder the world-wide-web suggests that while looking for the word ‘sacrifice’ one must also look up term ‘victimize’. Perhaps because there is so much in common between the two terms, even though ‘sacrifice’ is voluntary while as ‘victim-hood’ is very rarely deliberate and charitable. People are victimized, usually through coercion; they very rarely offer themselves to be victims.

Ayn Rand, in her “Virtue of Selfishness” explains the term ‘sacrifice’ as the exchanging of that which is valued highly, for that which is valued less, or not at all. Obviously, the logic then says that during sacrifice one gives up something “less valued” in exchange of something “more valuable”. As is true in the Kashmir’s political context, this logic simply trivializes the value of human life and dignity. And in her philosophical thought, ‘Objectivism’, based on the principle that the “highest good is the pursuit of one’s own rational self-interest”, Rand’s logic says that “rational self interest” will never ever allow anyone to devalue self-life, which according to her is “irrational”. She says acts that are irrationally and egotistically motivated are not considered sacrifice.

Having recorded this, one may now ask if all those sufferings of Kashmiri people that are counted as ‘sacrifices’ today, were actually the “voluntary acts” allowed and sanctioned by the “rational self-interest”?

Indeed no other word or term is used and abused as much as the term ‘sacrifice’ here. Our leaders always refer to the ‘sacrifices’ of Kashmir’s dead and alive, while resolving that they would do nothing, nor allow anyone else to do anything that may harm or undermine the people’s sacrifices. No one can dispute the significance of neither ‘sacrifices’ nor the ‘unity’ of people and its leadership for the success of any political movement. However, here both these terms have been relegated to mere clichés that so impressively dot the political speeches but in reality mean nothing for those using them without fail.

Real revolutions, it must be said, are brought about not by the hot, emotional and impulsive passions; they are possible on the basis of calculated and purposeful action drawn on the basis of an awareness of the realistic relationship between means and ends and how each determines the other. The greatest hope for mankind lies in acceptance of the great law of change, for the clues to the rational action lie in understanding of the principles of change. Rigidity is no virtue in politics, flexibility is. And flexibility does not necessarily mean sell-out, because, after all, different people, in different places, in different situations and in different times, think differently. This is how human brains are programmed to be. So, different people’s solutions and symbols of salvation have a tendency to be different. No one has a right to claim absolute copyright of truth or revolution for that matter. This is where the political consensus becomes necessary. But no consensus is possible unless dogmas like the ones that devalue self-life are done away with and the worthwhile suggestions on how to fertilize social change are heeded.

Thanks to the raging controversy about the Article 370, the two regional majors — National Conference and Peoples Democratic Party — otherwise facing political irrelevance, get an opportunity to engage in some rhetorical warfare every now and then. And they do without fail – blaming all but themselves for the continued dilution of the Article 370, which gives special status to Jammu and Kashmir in the Indian Union.

True, this law has, over the years, lost much of its teeth. But more than anyone else, including the successive governments in New Delhi, it is the state governments here which are responsible for it. Without the support and connivance of the state governments, there is not much the Centre could have done to Article 370. Mind it, barring few years, it has been the NC which has ruled the state throughout. PDP also got couple of shots at power. So to be precise, three successive generations of Abdullahs and two successive Muftis have been in power here. So instead of blaming others, both these parties must look inwards to see their own complicity in bringing the situation to where it is now. Same is true for the Congress as well. It is equally guilty of not only diluting the Article 370 but also responsible for much of the troubles in Jammu and Kashmir.

They say the judgment of the ethics and means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment. So as long as the NC or PDP were ruling the state and Congress at the Centre, all they did to Kashmir was “for the welfare and betterment, progress and development” of the place and its peoples. But once they have been ousted out of power, they have suddenly realized the dangers Kashmir is faced with under the BJP rule. By the way both parties have during different points in time shared crumbs of power in alliance with the BJP too!

Notwithstanding what BJP says about Article 370, it cannot do much about it as it is not constitutionally and legally tenable. And the fallouts of such a move are certainly far weighty than any potential political benefits. Congress, NC and PDP know it better than anyone else. They know it that the law can be diluted through manipulations as has been done so far, but it cannot be out-rightly abrogated. Yet they are out in open speaking about the issue for their own political benefits. Actually none of them has any love lost for the Article 370.

Those who claim that this constitutional provision is responsible for the lack of development in Jammu and Kashmir — they must look at the developmental indices elsewhere in Indian mainland where there is no Article 370 and yet the world’s poorest of the poor live there. Kashmir is certainly better off than most of these regions in India.

Coming back to the NC’s and PDP’s political claims in ‘defense’ of Article 370, they must grow up now. The era of Shiekh Abdullah or for that matter Mufti Mohammad Sayeed is gone. Farooq Abdullah’s clowning around too has lost its appeal. Omar Abdullah’s beautiful articulation on issues is nothing but impressive speechifying. Mehbooba Mufti’s angry tantrums – milk and toffee comments — are too fresh in public memory.

The new generations in Kashmir who were born and have grown amidst the pornography of violence around them, and whose education and recreational pursuits have exposed them to the happenings from all over in today’s mediatized world, cannot be fooled into believing hollow claims and false promises. They do not identify with the so-called sacrifices of the party founders, which they are not able to corroborate from the books of history. They have seen each of these parties acting as mere extensions of New Delhi and obediently carrying out the orders of their masters with complete disregard for the local sensitivities and sensibilities. So they have no reason to buy into their claims — “our stance is 100 percent statement of justice for the people of Kashmir and 100 percent denunciation of the role of New Delhi!”

They know nothing is black and white. Neither NC nor PDP could claim that their history, their cause and their being are allied with the angels; and that their adversaries are evil, tied to the Devil. They must know that deliberate omission of their own history may be dictated by their political expediency, but for the common people it is deliberate deceit!

Politics, according to Webster is “the science and art of government”. Though it is generally viewed in a context of corruption, interestingly, however, its dictionary synonyms are “discreet, provident, diplomatic, wise….” So if politics is the art of doing a ‘thing’ wisely, then wisdom also lies in knowing when not to do a ‘thing’. If politics is about raising an issue, then it is equally also about knowing when to let it go. There is certainly no room for overdoing anything in politics, because there is a very thin line separating politics from idiocy and imprudence. No wonder, the dictionary antonyms for ‘wise’ are imprudent, foolish, thoughtless and silly!

Every single person active in the arena called politics will have to make a choice – as to which side of the line they want to be on. Do they want to be counted among the wise, or otherWISE? Choice is theirs. However, if they choose the former, which is what politics is all about, then they will certainly have to do a rethink over their strategies and tactics.

In politics no issue, howsoever important it may be, is going to be available to be milked forever. Any issue or a tactic that drags for too long becomes a drag. This is why the political leaders are advised to make careful choices on how far to go with an issue — when to say what, to whom, where and how in as much as they need to know when not to say what, to whom, where and how, and most importantly why. The success or failure of their politics lies in mastering this very art.

Past week Kashmir saw a political alliance taking shape – between former bureaucrat Shah Feasal’s and former MLA (Langate) Shiekh Abdul Rasheed’s parties. Before this alliance came into being, speculation was also rife about an altogether different combination, which besides Rasheed also included at least three politicians, who have for long being trying to put together what they had been saying would be the “Third Front’ of Kashmir politics. But this front never came to fruition and still remains a pipe dream – at least for the trio of M Y Tarigami, Hakeem Mohammad Yaseen and Ghulam Hassan Mir.

Interestingly during the recently concluded Lok Sabha elections, Ghulam Hassan Mir had put his weight behind Rasheed at least in one Assembly constituency of Gulmarg, where former has some influence. Though Rasheed couldn’t win the Baramulla Lok Sabha seat, but he did manage a sizeable chunk of votes which have obviously added to his political weight.

Now the question is how do one reconcile these diametrically divergent, if not entirely opposite, stated political positions of each of these individuals coming together on a single platform at different points of time. More clearly put, how does Rasheed strike a balance between someone like Shah Feasal and Mir? Or for that matter how does Sahah Feasal explain striking an accord with Rasheed, who until recently was mulling, or may be still is, an alliance with the likes of Mir, and Tarigami, and Yaseen?

This reminds me of Winston Churchill. History has it that few hours before the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union during World War II, then British premier Churchill’s private secretary, while informing his boss about the imminent turn of events asked how Churchill, the leading British anti-Communist, could reconcile himself to being on the same side as the Soviets.  “Would not Churchill find it embarrassing and difficult to ask his government to support Communists?”

But Churchill’s reply was clear and unequivocal: “Not at all. I have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby. If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons!”

So there obviously is nothing wrong in the political choices politicians here make about different permutations and combinations, or anything else. But then, like Churchill, they will also have to do a bit of explaining about it so as to help people understand their politics, which otherwise baffles them.

One last thing, and certainly a friendly counsel for all: Ever wondered why masterpieces of philosophy and scientific statements are no longer than a few words — like E=mc², for instance? It is basically a determination not to detour around reality. And reality howsoever ugly, must be confronted, for then only could one strive to have ugliness make way for the beauty.

Like other arts and crafts, Kashmiri’s had no less expertise in producing some of the finest and exquisite items of jewelry. Massive workshops were set up in various villages, towns and cities for this purpose and people would toil hard to beautify metals into relics of beauty.
The community dealing with manufacturing ornaments is locally known as ‘Zarger’ (goldsmith)and has been historically known for their craft. Most of the members of the said community would be associated with the same business and would also enjoy a high status in the society.

Although things have changed now and many members of the community switched over to other professions, this community still retains the major portion of this trade in Kashmir and continues to dominate the ornamental manufacturing here.
There are many Zargar families associated with commissioning of the glorious golden ornaments while several other families belonging to other castes have also joined them in their trade.

Contrary to the olden traditions, people from other casts (apart from Zargar) embraced this trade and have setup their own showrooms and workshops in the busy streets of Srinagar and various towns and districts.

Interestingly, there are several Punjabi traders who have also joined this business and are manufacturing brilliant types of jewelry here.
The tradition of Jewelry manufacturing in Kashmir is as old as the civilization itself. Evidences related to the manufacturing and usage of jewelry is found in the historical records of this place while the archaeological finds too confirm this trend. Records also suggest that the art of ornaments here has had its peculiar features and the design and style have been entirely unique.
In ancient times, the Kashmiri Rajas and Maharajas were fond of different kinds of jewelry items. Kalhana’s Rajtarangni, the oldest historical chronicle, makes a mention about the jewelry items worn by the Maharajas and their queens. The terms like Nupras(anklet), Hara (necklace), Kankana (wristlet), Keyura(amulet), Parihara(bracelet) and Kundala( Earings ) refer to the ancient jewelry objects that would be preferred by the Raja’s and Maharaja’s here.
The earliest evidences of jewelry items were found in the archaeological sites of Harwan, Ushkar and Litpura sites (100-400) AD, where the exhumed material showed the human pattern of men and women wearing brilliant ornaments. There are few tiles found at Harwan in the outskirts of Srinagar that show females wearing brilliant types of earrings.
People of Kashmir have been passionate lovers of jewelry and this is proved by the fact that we have had names, mostly of female folk, after ornaments of different types. Many women, in olden times, would be named after special ornaments. Some of such names include Shahmaal (King’s necklace), Mali (Necklace),
One of the artifacts found at Ushkar in Baramalla depicts the pattern of hair ball wearing a lovely hairpin. Similarly the evidence of earrings, bracelets etc, like designs have been found in the layers of Letpura.
The tradition of Jewelry continued later in the Hindu and Muslim periods in Kashmir history.  The lovely miniatures and colorful manuscripts and documents housed in Kashmir museums also depict illustrations that also show ornaments being used at length.
Kashmiri jewelers commissioned a variety of ornaments.  According to a jeweler “The jewelry of Kashmir is unique in design and very minutely worked. The various types of jewelry such as earrings, necklaces, bracelets, anklets, amulets, rings, rosary, tin or silver, charm, cases and head bands are all delicately worked, even though the base is sometimes solid. The jewelers seem to have had nature as their model in most ornaments.”
In present scenario, gold smiths here record good business and make fortunes. Special ornament sets are prepared and designed for special events and occasions including marriage ceremonies. Kashmiri brides are incomplete without the golden jewelry while people also gift delicate ornaments to the brides. A jewelry set usually comprises of a large necklace locally termed as Har, bangle set (Bungri) earrings (Door), and rings. The whole of the set is called, in general, as Zaver or Gahna. When marriages are fixed, the issues related to jewelry are also settled as per the wishes of the bride.
It is quite clear that Kashmiri women also have a strong yearning for wearing high class jewelry. They follow it more strictly, but with certain modifications. Earlier silver ornaments were preferred as compared to the golden ornaments which are now more in vogue.
The passion for better jewelry is not bad but ignoring the traditional designs and styles of Kashmiri ornament is worrying. The art and heritage lovers say that instead of imitating the non-Kashmiri designs, local types and styles should be patronized. The designs that come here from outside  may not be good, but the local patterns had a significant and profound identity.
The gold smiths and the units involved in manufacturing jewelry need to study the classical designs of Kashmiri Jewelry and re-introduce those designs in new formats. The olden designs can be traced from the olden paintings, miniatures, sculptures and terracotta’s. Such designs are very impressive and magnificent. They are purely Kashmiri.
If these olden styles and designs are re-introduced in this industry,   it would not only help in promoting and reviving the pure Kashmiri styles, but would also help in expanding its market. The institutions involved in the jewelry trade need to check the non-Kashmiri trends while the government, particularly the handicrafts department, too should take note of this matter.
 

Somewhere in mid-sixties, an American political organizer after finishing his lecture at the Stanford University was approached by a Soviet professor of political economics from University of Leningrad. Since both these people shared diametrically opposite worldviews about the global politics and its core definitions, the opening of the discussions between the two was obviously illustrative of this basic variance in their perceptions and understandings. “Where do you stand on communism?” asked the Russian. “That is a bad question,” the American replied, and then continued, “The real question is: ‘Whose Communists are they – yours or ours?’ And my answer is — if they are ours, then we are all for them. If they are yours, obviously we are against them. Communism itself is irrelevant. The issue is whether they are on our side or yours. Now, if you Russians didn’t have a mortgage on Castro, we would be talking about Cuba’s right to self-determination and the fact that you couldn’t have a free election until after there had been a period of education following the repression of the dictatorship of Batista. As a matter of fact, if you should start trying to push for a free election in Yugoslavia, we might even send our Marines to prevent this kind of sabotage.”

“What is your definition of a free election outside of your country?” asked the Russian again. “Well, our definition of a free election in, say, Vietnam, is pretty much what your definition is in your satellites,” replied the American. “If we have got everything set so that we are going to win, then it is a free election. Otherwise, it is bloody terrorism! Isn’t that your definition?” The Russian’s reaction was, “Well, yes, more or less!”

How-so-much one may want to differ, fact of the matter remains that this conversation between the Russian professor and the American organizer very succinctly defines some of the very core realities of real politick. And those who have lived in Kashmir and have been witness to the political developments of the Valley vis-a-vis their relationship with both New Delhi and Islamabad, certainly are well-placed to put this conversation in perspective and draw some really meaningful insights and inferences. Irrespective of who says what, fact of the matter is that nobody cares much about the people of this troubled Valley so long as their self-interest is not threatened. Politics is, basically, the business of securing naked self-interest; and only a specialist knows the ‘art’ of clothing it in the robes of morality. Unbelievable it may seem, but we all, even those who are not in the realm of active public politics, operate on the basis of self-interest, desperately trying to reconcile every shift of circumstances that is to our self-interest in terms of a broad moral justification or rationalization.

The loud moral rhetoric surrounding the politics of Kashmir notwithstanding, both within and outside of its geographical territories, it is the same ‘naked self-interest’ of varied interest groups, big and small, political and even seemingly apolitical actors, that is being bartered over the heads of the ordinary people. And then, everybody out there is goes on to emotionally blackmail ordinary Kashmiris into believing that they are at the focus of the local, regional and global attention. They are told — what New Delhi says and does is for ‘your good’; what Islamabad talks and acts is for ‘your benefit’; ‘your interest’ is at the heart of the American and British, French and Chinese and Russian foreign policies. Presented in tetra-packs of morality, everything is accorded a sort of spiritual aura here so much so that it is considered blasphemous to question anybody’s self-interest. Our collective disarmament is abject — we do not ask, and those who dare and ask questions are not tolerated either.

By the way, Communism does not concern us. Free elections, however, is an issue, for we have not had many in our entire history. But, now we are repeatedly told that elections too is not an issue, and thinking of participating in them is outright treason, even if one goes with the intention of using the “None of the Above Option” to make a big and credible political statement before the local, regional and international audiences. Recall the conversation between the American and the Russian. Isn’t it meaningful…?

The very low voter turnout during the just concluded Lok Sabha elections in Kashmir may not have surprised any – for the political realists had anticipated it to be so. As always the separatists had also called for boycott and their calls were endorsed by a wider cross-section, including the vocal civil society actors who make it to media through opinion pieces. But the low voter turnout cannot be attributed only to their boycott call. Doing so would be like over-simplifying. Besides in that case, someone should also try and explain people’s enthusiasm to cast votes in certain areas. Obviously this poses many more questions than most people would like to engage with, and answer.

How do we look at these elections, at least in terms of people’s participation or otherwise? Is it an attestation of what New Delhi and its media wants us to believe – “a big no to separatist politics in Kashmir” or what the separatist would like it to be “a big endorsement of their politics”?

Actually it is neither. People have not abandoned the “sentiment” by participating in the elections, nor are they trying to put a seal of approval on the political status quo that separatists seem to be comfortable with, and want to perpetuate here. Indeed both streams of opinion – those who think in ‘either or’ terms vis-a-vis people’s participation or otherwise in the elections make a mortal mistake of over-simplifying it.

People are certainly not happy with the separatists for their failure in evolving with a viable road-map for taking, in their own words, the “movement to the logical conclusion”. They are, at the same time, not comfortable with the continued status quo via-a-vis the disputed nature of Kashmir, as also with a multitude of other minute rows and clashes that make Kashmir one of the most protracted and complex conflicts – at least at two different levels – between India and Pakistan, and between Srinagar and New Delhi – if only other intra-state dimensions are overlooked for the time being. So people’s participation, or their boycott is in elections is in no way ratification or otherwise of the simplistic inferences deduced by varied actors as per their own conveniences.

“If people are organized with a dream of future ahead of them, the actual planning that takes place in organizing and the hopes and the fears for the future give them just as much inner satisfaction as does their actual achievement.” This is something that the elections do, and which, how-so-much one may disagree, the politics of election boycotts has neither aimed to achieve, nor has been able to reach. The kind of participation that elections provide, right from planning, getting together to campaign for or against any candidate, and then fighting together to make someone win or loose an election, completely changes the average Kashmiri, who until the elections so aimlessly treads the “dull, gray, monotonous road of existence”.

Elections are basically about people’s participation – they are about working by and with the people, even if in the kind of politics that is practiced here, it is, unfortunately, not always about working for them. Elections, though very briefly, break down the feeling of the people about them being social automations with no stake in the future. It rather makes them feel like “human beings in possession of all the responsibility, strength, and human dignity which constitute the heritage of free citizens of a democracy.”