Aam Aadmi – Empathize or Impersonate?

Don’t need impersonation or rhetoric

Politics is changing – the way it is done and the way it is perceived. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Is this solely because of the Aam Aadmi Party’s spectacular debut in Delhi? No, not solely. The voter is evolving, and in the context of Kashmir – so is the ‘non-voter’. This evolution is a result of disgruntlement with decades of status quo politics that has been inherited now by an intensely opinionated and articulate generation – a generation that refuses to conform to the traditional specter of politics, as we knew it. Something is churning at the grassroots level. And that churning and restlessness needs to acknowledged and respected. As political parties – we need to change from within to relate to the change outside.

However, rhetoric is the nemesis of change. There are two ways to deal with an evolved electorate – we either impersonate him by dressing in a certain way, speaking in a certain way and acting in a certain way – wearing masks of austerity and posturing as purists ordained by God to save the world. That, in my opinion, is the fastest and most effective way to show our contempt for the common man – by stereotyping him and undermining his intelligence. This ‘impersonation’ of the “aam aadmi” has already become nauseating. Reminds one of the inimitable R. K. Laxman’s common-man cartoon strips.

The common-man cannot be defined and suffocated into a convenient political mould. And how will impersonation translate into genuine change? How will rhetoric save the sinking ship?

The other way is empathizing with the common-man. The common-man needs empathy – not impersonation. The leaders don’t need to go to great heights to look like them and live like them. What the leaders need to do is work for them – day in and day out. What the leaders need to do is understand the rank pessimism that has engulfed the electorate and the need to do away with traditional, rusty, hierarchical partisan politics. The deliverance of change will be a derivative of how dynamic and imaginative political parties choose to become inside the four walls of their institutions.

I’m a big fan of the charismatic, affluent and blue-blooded John F Kennedy. I’m equally inspired by Jose’ Mujica – the President of Paraguay, popularly known as the “poorest President in the world”. Does a Mujica trump a Kennedy by default? No – absolutely not. Leadership is beyond the definitive games of curating a popular, synthetic brand-image – leadership is about effecting drastic, systemic changes that have long-term benefits – about leaving behind a legacy. And measuring that change can only be done on the basis of performance – not tall promises or rhetoric alone.         

As for newcomers and aspirants for leading the State, it is understandable that they cannot be measured and judged on the basis of performance. And that cannot be held against them. However, they should certainly be judged on the basis of their ideas and plans. For now, none of the new political formations and alternatives in J&K have defined their vision of reform – there are no policy papers, no concrete plans. Nothing. Just rhetoric and rhetoric about the need to reform the political system. And that too is a manipulative approach to exploit the empowering evolution that is taking place at the grassroots level – unfortunately an effective way to nip it too.  

And as for those who have already been prominent, powerful parts of the political dispensation since decades – they are duty-bound to justify their past actions as well as inactions on crucial policy fronts and simultaneously offer definitive and unambiguous solutions to the problems that confront us. That too has not happened.

Unfortunately the political engagement between established political entities in the State as well as in the entire country has been a typical tit-for-tat, acrimonious and negative quarrelling in newspapers and TV channels. Nothing discourages the common-man more. Nothing feeds the ocean of cynicism with greater efficiency.    

We are dealing with an educated generation with comparative perspectives and with an exposure that is unprecedented – both in scope and depth. Let us – irrespective of political divides and differences – respect the evolution that has taken place and engage with our citizens by involving them in shaping policy. That and that alone is what will satisfy the Aam Aadmi’s’ thirst for change.

(Junaid Azim Mattu belongs to the J&K National Conference. Ideas expressed are personal. Feedback at junaid.msu@gmail.com)

The Article 370 Debate

Roots, History and Story of Erosion

The BJP’s Prime Ministerial Candidate at a public rally in Jammu made some factually inaccurate, distorted remarks about Article 370 of the Constitution of India. Although Mr. Modi’s call for a “debate” on the Article indicated an unusual departure from the party’s traditional radical stance, this rather ‘positive development’ too was dashed on Thursday when BJP Spokesperson Vijay Sonkar Shastri stated with an unambiguous clarity that the BJP would “scrap” Article 370 if voted to power at the center. While neither BJP nor any political party can scrap Article 370, I would like to take this opportunity to counter some domestic political distortions of history in the context of the erosion of the State’s special status. I will write a few more columns about the external dimensions and narratives surrounding Article 370.  

As most of us know, Article 370 of the Constitution of India grants a certain special status to the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Incorporated into the constitution by the Constituent Assembly of India in 1949, the Article was drafted by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and forms the definitive constitutional ‘bridge’ between the State of Jammu & Kashmir and the Union of India.

According to Article 370, the Indian Parliament requires the concurrence of the State Assembly for applying central laws in the State of J&K except those pertaining to defence, foreign affairs, finance and communications.

In its original form, which has hence unfortunately undergone considerable erosion due to various Presidential orders that have made most central laws applicable to J&K, the Article gave Jammu & Kashmir its own Prime Minister and ‘Sadar-e-Riyasat’, hence replaced by the nomenclatures of Chief Minister and Governor respectively.

On account of Article 370 certain separate laws govern the residents of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The most debated in the now diminished list are the laws governing citizenship, residency and ownership and inheritance of property in the State.        

The contours and features of Article 370 were personally envisaged by Sher-e-Kashmir, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah to safeguard the State’s sense of identity and nationalism within the Union of India. Realizing that the State’s political, economic and strategic future and that of its citizens was best served and protected by acceding to the Union of India, Sheikh Sahib wanted certain “iron clad” provisions and conditions to accompany the accession. Sheikh Sahib was strongly opposed to such conditions and provisions being constitutionally categorized as “temporary provisions” and fought hard to change this till the very last moment.     

The story of the erosion of J&K’s special status can neither been explained by a demonization of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah nor through a persistent distortion of history. As stated by Dr. Mustafa Kamal, a significant part of this erosion was carried out through pliant governments in the State that were installed through surreptitious methods at frequent intervals. These self-righteous critics and self-proclaimed saviors of Kashmir have traditionally stayed silent about the roles played to this effect by the governments of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad (1953 to 1964), Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq (1964 to 1965) and Syed Mir Qasim (1971 to 1975) under the patronage of a particular national party. While Sadiq and Qasim were Congress leaders, Bakshi was as much a National Conference leader as much as Goneril and Regan were loving and obedient daughters to King Lear.  

While Bakshi’s run at power is an almost theatrically engrossing Shakespearian tale of opportunism, betrayal and cold-blooded deceit both with Sheikh Sahib and the people of Kashmir at large, Sadiq’s story is a narrative of how a Kashmiri leader appeased a nationalist Indian agenda of eroding J&K’s special status to operative perfection. As Sumantra Bose points out in his book, “Kashmir – Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace”, Sadiq – the founder of Congress in J&K, was a strong votary for the abolishment of Article 370 and was even invested with the responsibility of dismantling Jammu & Kashmir National Conference and integrating the “remnants” into the Indian National Congress. A. G. Noorani validates the same.

Pertinently Article 356 and 357 of the Indian Constitution were extended to the State of Jammu & Kashmir in December 1964 during the tenure of Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq of the Congress. This, inarguably the biggest single erosion of the State’s special status, did not happen at the behest of either National Conference or Sheikh Sahib but in fact in strong opposition to his continued efforts to safeguard the special status despite incarceration and persecution. Ironically, a certain leader whose late father was a Congress leader during this period in history has recently blamed Sheikh Sahib for the erosion of Article 370. Invoking H.P. Lovecraft, “From even the greatest of horrors, irony is seldom absent.”

Our demand for the restoration of autonomy and the eroded special status of the State is far from an “electoral pitch”. It is the continuation of a consistent battle to safeguard the identity and interests of our people. As far as distortions of history are concerned – there is a special place in history for such distorters – the inglorious footnotes and sidelines.  

(Views expressed are personal and not of the party I belong to. For feedback - junaid.msu@gmail.com)

Why National Conference?

My journey from sidelines to rhetoric to reality 

Why did I – one of the most vocal and vociferous critics of the ruling dispensation –join the National Conference? Why did I quit the Peoples’ Conference? The most simple and honest answer to both questions would be – “I was wrong”. However this merits a more nuanced explanation.

In a lot of ways I’m an ordinary, common Kashmiri boy who was born in Srinagar and went to the Burn Hall School. I completed the final years of my schooling at the Bishop Cotton School in Shimla and then, through my family, migrated to the United States, where I received my college education.

I had always planned on moving back. I scorned upon those who criticized the system without making any effort to change it from within. So, months after I became eligible for an American citizenship in 2009 and while I was working as a Financial Analyst with the Government of Michigan, I moved back to Kashmir and decided to put my money where my mouth was.

While in the US, I would often come back from perfect weekend road trips and then write evocative, pontificating blogs about the need for change and revolution in Kashmir, about a righteous and just battle against oppression in Kashmir, against the ‘collaborators’ – all from the bliss of my normal life in Michigan. That is what Kashmiris like me, from my sort of a background do. We talk about sacrifice, struggle and Azadi while ensuring that the turmoil doesn’t alter any aspect of our own lives. For the dying part of the revolution – well there is always the poor man’s son.  

Meanwhile in the run up to the elections of 2008, Mr. Omar Abdullah had started an informal blog on the NC website. This was unprecedented. No political leader in Kashmir had ever tried to engage with commoners with such honesty. For how riled up and obnoxious we can become on social media, this was a very brave decision. And obviously there were endless back and forth discussions on these blogs. I was the regular “angry” virtual victim who, in feedback debates on these blogs, pontificated from the moral high ground.

In responding to the fiercest and at times most ruthless criticism, I found Omar Abdullah to be an extraordinarily humble and honest individual. Embarrassed due to the discordant tonality of my earlier posts, I humbled down and started introspecting – coming to terms with the glaring mismatch between my life and my political posturing.

Meanwhile back home, the Assembly Elections of 2008 saw Mr. Omar Abdullah become the Chief Minister of a disgruntled J&K that was ripe for a generational shift in leadership. I soon mentioned my plans of moving back and joining politics to Mr. Abdullah – who had by now become a good, dear friend. I clearly remember how he unequivocally cautioned me about the uncertainty and risks such a step would bring with it – the biggest being the possibility of a phase of financial hardship – an inability to maintain the life standard I had now gotten used to in the United States. I did face all those challenges. And today for having faced them and still sticking my neck out and not giving up and not running back to the safety and stability of an expatriate life, I am an entirely new person with a much thicker layer of skin.

In the autumn of 2009, I resigned from my job as a Financial Analyst with the Government in the US and moved back to Kashmir. Unfortunately, partly due to circumstances and partly due to the fact that a phase of darkness and uncertainty at this crucial age comes with an almost organic sort of bitterness and disgruntlement that feeds on itself, around a year after returning from the United States and after grueling months of uncertainty and having nothing to do – I took up Mr. Sajad Lone’s invitation to join the Peoples’ Conference – a small yet old political party that didn’t have a single elected representative in the system and was at that time quite uncertain about its own future course of action. After three years with the Peoples’ Conference and with due respect to Mr. Lone, I eventually decided to not stay in a party which has to function on the whims of one single man. And I wish him the best.

I still have the same belief in the need for ‘Change’ and still treasure the idealism within me. I however have had this evolved first-hand realization that ‘Change’ can only come from institutions and not forums and fan-clubs that revolve around an individual. I also believe that true change will come from a style of realistic, humble and sober politics; not from flowery, unending and ambiguous rhetoric about the academic/philosophical concepts of change and reform.

The more important and completely separate question now – Why did I join the National Conference?

National Conference is the pioneer of reform and ‘change’ in Kashmiri Politics. In politics, history gives glory and baggage in almost equal proportions and more often than not the “moral high ground” is a luxury that only the pontificating spectator or the newcomer can afford. National Conference has a glorious history – one that our forefathers have been a part a parcel of. A history of enduring decades of persecution for the cause of liberation. My grandfather, Khwaja Ghulam Ahmad Ashai, was one of the four founding secretaries of National Conference. It was Ashai Sahib who read out the first inaugural address of the party in 1932. He occupied various important positions in the government such as the Chief Whip of the Legislative Assembly, Inspector General of Muslim Education, the representative of Kashmiri Muslims in the Glancy Commission and finally the first Acting Vice Chancellor of the Kashmir University. History bears witness to his selfless association with Sheikh Sahib, despite a phase of political differences. In 1953 he was incarcerated along with Sheikh Sahib.

As I mentioned in my first speech at Nawa-e-Subh and something I keep reiterating – history doesn’t start in 1989. Kashmir’s contemporary political history starts in the 1920s when a handful of educated young Kashmiris returned home to fight for the rights of their people – to equality, to dignity and to prosperity. National Conference was born from this sacred fire of Kashmiri renaissance in the quaint little “Reading Room” in Fateh Kadal where seven educated young Kashmiris would meet and discuss the changing world, the feudal oppression of the Dogra Rulers and the dream of a ‘Naya Kashmir’. How this group of educated young patriots rallied around Sheikh Sahib took us out from a feudal existence and ushered us into an era of equality, education and institutional reform.

I’m not a historian who can dissect and pass judgments on what was done and not done six decades ago and then attach moral attributes to such decisions. However, I have been a keen student of Kashmiri history. A fundamental problem with a retrospective analysis of history is that in cases like that of Kashmir, we don’t depict the past in objective, historical contexts but instead view and judge history through the lens of contemporary developments, passing phases, current political incidents, accidents and beliefs.

Even for the most biased critics of the party, it’s hard to deny that the role of National Conference in the history of Kashmir has been pivotal and historic. And history is important especially in the politics of a place like Kashmir – provided our analysis of history is contextual, objective and realistic. And in the Kashmir of today, one that is being divided on the basis of regions, religions, towns and villages, be that by the PDP or the BJP or even the Congress – such lessons and legacies of history are invaluable.

In an era of gamesmanship, Machiavellianism and proxy-ism, an era of third and fourth fronts and covert alliances – it is important that we connect our history to our present and carry it on with us into our future. That we stick together and stay strong as a united, secular Jammu & Kashmir.

In Mr. Omar Abdullah we have a perceptive, humble and honest statesman with an impeccable leadership character. He is the last man on earth who would allow a compromise on our special status, our identity and our dignity for personal interests. He never lies. His articulation is earnest and his style of politics is quiet and selfless. How can we afford to not be on his side?

Today, days after I joined the National Conference, I walked into the Nawa-e-Subh central hall and randomly looked up straight ahead of me and saw two life size portraits of my grandfather hung on the wall straight ahead. I cannot explain that spontaneous feeling in words – both of belonging and of repentance. But one thing I know – that I will do justice to that feeling, to our identity and to the sacrifices we have rendered as Kashmiris, including those rendered by thousands of NC workers and supporters.

(Views expressed are personal and not of the party I belong to. For feedback - junaid.msu@gmail.com)