Kashmir is happy. So what?

What makes Manu Joseph more qualified to talk about Kashmir?

Statecraft

HAPPYMON JACOB

This in response to Manu Joseph’s Open Magazine article entitled “Sorry, Kashmir is happy” (22 April, 2012). I have a number of reactions to his assertions on Kashmir as expressed in the article. Having read the piece many times over, I am of the opinion that Manu Joseph’s article is ahistorical, deeply ignorant of facts, shockingly simplistic and dismally under-researched. At best, it is a celebration of half-truths. Following are the reasons why I say so. 

One of Joseph’s key arguments is that “Trauma in Kashmir is like a heritage building—the elite fight to preserve it.” True, intellectual debates about the political resolution of Kashmir are mostly confined to the politically charged environs of urban Kashmir. Indeed, a lot of ordinary Kashmiris, more so in the rural areas of Kashmir, seem unconcerned about the political resolution of Kashmir. But what’s so surprising about that? Doesn’t Manu Joseph know that most revolutionary political movements have a vanguard that provides it with intellectual nourishment and political direction? This is true of most revolutionary political movements all over the world. What does he think the Indian national movement was like? Didn’t it have an urban, educated middle class that gave it the intellectual firepower to chase the British colonizers out of India? To expect every Indian in every remote corner of British India to have been motivated in equal measure by the freedom movement is unrealistic. 

Joseph also argues: “what Pakistan has become, politically and economically, has ensured that accession to that country is not part of popular sentiment here anymore”. This statement reflects the usual fallacy that a lot of Indian analysts commit when commenting on Kashmir. For them, the azadi movement in Kashmir is all about joining Pakistan or propped up by Pakistan. While they may be partly right, they are mostly wrong: Kashmir’s azadi movement has political, philosophical and nationalist underpinnings of its own irrespective of Pakistan’s intentions and designs. 

Joseph claims that “Kashmir’s elite, especially those who live in Kashmir, believe that a sovereign Kashmir is an impractical idea and to continue the status quo with the newly prosperous and somewhat secular India is the best way forward”. The fallacious assumption made by Joseph here is that Kashmir’s dissident elite prefers nothing but the status quo. He is wholly unaware of the dynamic nature of politics in Kashmir and how much the politics and the positions of Kashmir’s dissident elite have changed over the years. Joseph should read more on Kashmir or observe Kashmir politics far more carefully so as to avoid making such erroneous broad-brush claims. 

Let's look at another one of his arguments. He, like a lot of conflict resolution specialists in New Delhi, seems to argue: “give them development, give them education and that’s the solution to the Kashmir problem”. Seriously?  In fact, even if one were to accept that prescription who would believe that New Delhi can give Kashmiris development, education and other forms of economic prosperity? Well, forget about Kashmir, New Delhi has not been able to deliver proper governance in any part of the country. 
Joseph contends that ordinary Kashmiris are only concerned about economic and governance considerations and not about the high politics of azadi. That is not completely incorrect but what’s so new about that argument? In fact, that is the case in all situations of enduring conflict – people always talk about their immediate problems. But that does not mean that there are no deeper, political problems in the society which should be resolved, not ignored.  

Put another way, just because Kashmiris seem happy (and I don’t think that Kashmiris as a species are an unhappy people), it doesn’t logically follow that there are no political problems in Kashmir; just because Kashmir’s hoteliers are looking forward to having more tourists in their properties next year does not mean that there are no political discontents in Kashmir. It is simplistic and naïve to argue that because people seem happy, everything is hunky-dory in Kashmir. Did Manu Joseph expect to see unhappy, unsmiling, un-hospitable, unkind, ungraceful Kashmiris when he went ‘sight-seeing’ Kashmir? Sorry to disappoint you Manu Joseph, but Kashmiris are a bunch of lively people who happen to love life.  You are right, Kashmir is happy (and they have a right to be happy) but their happiness is no reason why their political, civil and human rights should be trampled upon. 

So since Kashmir is happy, does it mean that they should ‘just move on’ forgetting the past? What about the thousands of widows, orphans, disappeared, and the kith and kin of the countless dead lying unsung in the many unmarked graves of Kashmir? If the answer is ‘lets go past it, look at tomorrow’, then I am sorry to say that your idea of justice needs to become more sophisticated.

Joseph seems to argue that protests in Kashmir are carried out by electricity-stealing young Kashmiris. Seriously? Were the tens of thousands of young Kashmiris who took to streets in 2008, 2009 and 2010 were none but electricity-stealing Kashmiri hooligans? Or were they Pakistani militants? Or Al-Qaeda terrorists?

Why is Joseph complaining that a host of writers, intellectuals and activists are the ones who keep talking about the Kashmir problem more than anybody else? Even if they do so and thereby contribute to keeping the Kashmir issue alive today, what’s wrong with that? Is that not what Manu Joseph is doing in Delhi - pontificating the government/society on the various political and social issues concerning the country? This kind of anti-intellectual tirade is not something we expect from someone like Manu Joseph who has actively been engaging in the country’s intellectual debates. 

Finally, why does Joseph have a problem with Kashmiri intellectuals and activists based in “North America, Europe, Dubai or Delhi”? What is the difference between Manu Joseph sitting in Delhi (with rare visits to Kashmir, hardly following the political developments in the state and still passing judgments on what is happening there) and the expat Kashmiris sitting in Dubai, London, US or Delhi (occasionally visiting Kashmir, closely following its political developments and passionately involved with what happens there)? How on earth is Manu Joseph more qualified to talk about Kashmir than the Dubai-London-US-New Delhi-based Kashmiri expats? 

(Source: greater Kashmir, 13 May, 2012. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/May/13/kashmir-is-happy-so-what--9.asp )

Hamid Ansari for President

The Indian public has largely remained disinterested as to who becomes the country’s Rashtrapati

STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB

The election of India’s next President is scheduled to be held in July this year. Election to the Indian Presidency is normally not considered to be a politically significant affair since Indian Presidents are only titular heads of the State, not of the executive. The Indian public has largely remained disinterested as to who becomes the country’s Rashtrapati and hence political parties in the country also do not attribute much importance to the selection of an appropriate person to hold the country’s highest constitutional office. However, new India, the ‘post-Hazare’ India, should have a visionary and widely respected person in the Raisina Hill.
Even though the Indian President is not responsible for running the country on a day-to-day basis, there is still a lot that a visionary President can do for the country including in the comity of nations. While the President of India may only have symbolic power, let us not assume that symbolic power does not matter in domestic politics or international relations. A country’s image, stature and influence do not depend only on its hard, material power but also its ideational, soft, and symbolic power. Indeed, sometimes the power of symbols, ideas and visions matter more than the number of tanks and range of missiles. More importantly, states are also often known by the stature of their statesmen. Sometimes even when a state has the material capability to influence developments in world politics, it may not be able to do so primarily due to the lack of statesmen who can convert national power into international outcomes. In other words, in the era of soft power and media diplomacy where visions, norms and values have global presence, a visionary President can make a huge difference to the international standing of India.
India has had many Presidents who were looked upon with admiration for their vision and wisdom. The great Presidency of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, who was an internationally acclaimed philosopher and statesman, is remembered to this day. The incumbent Vice President of India, Mohammad Hamid Ansari, is a visionary and a true statesman who can bring much glory to this country and the President’s office and hence should be elected as the next President of India. Ansari has the potential of making a great President.

Intellectual and thoughtful
Ansari is not a career politician. He is a retired Indian diplomat who, since his retirement, has been one of the influential intellectuals of the country. Anyone who has ever had an in-depth conversation with the Vice President, as has this author, will realize the greatness of the man and the magnitude of his knowledge and wisdom. Calm, composed and thoughtful, Ansari doesn’t jump to hasty conclusions but nudges his listeners to think rationally and form considered and wise opinions. Clearly, this Vice President could be India’s next ‘wise President’.

Diplomat, academic, strategic thinker, peacemaker…
Ansari is a man of many parts. He has been a distinguished diplomat with a sophisticated understanding of the world and India’s potential role in it (he was Ambassador in UAE, Australia, Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia) an outstanding academic (Visiting Professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University and Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation), able administrator (Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University), well-known strategic thinker (member of the National Security Advisory Board, and co-Chairman, India-U.K. Round Table) and a great scholar (author of a number of books). He has also been very active in the India-Pakistan track-two forums and has always put his best foot forward in advocating sustainable peace between the two countries. Ansari was seen as a sincere peacemaker and honest statesman in the Indo-Pak track-two circuits. While he always kept India’s national interest in mind in his interactions at the track-two meetings, he never came across as an irrational jingoist.  Ansari always had a solution whenever the two sides found themselves in a diplomatic impasse. He is a man of great intelligence who has exhibited exceptional skills at consensus building and excellent grasp of complex political debates, domestic and international.
My own interactions with Ansari were during my stint at the ORF and in the track-two circuits. Though far senior in age and stature, he always showed a sense of egalitarianism in dealing with his younger colleagues. With his intimate knowledge of international affairs especially the West Asian region, he was truly a fountain of wisdom and forward thinking at ORF. As a celebrated author of a number of academic books and scholarly articles, both the academic and the strategic communities hold him in high esteem. His caliber as a great statesman was once again witnessed by the nation in the manner in which he has been chairing the Rajya Sabha sessions with impartiality and great aplomb for the last five years.

The importance of a visionary Rashtrapati
We in India are accustomed to think that whoever becomes the President will not make much of a difference. That is a popular misnomer. At a time when India is passing through an era of political turbulence caused by widespread corruption and mal-governance, and political uncertainty created by weak coalition governments, this country deserves a Rashtrapati who can boost its morale and give it the much needed moral leadership and wise counsel. The people of India are in need of a Rashtrapati who they can look up to for inspiration and guidance. Indeed, it is the absence of such a visionary statesman in the Raisina Hill that drove the multitude of disillusioned Indians to Anna Hazare and the ilk. There is no doubt that Hamid Ansari is someone who can rise to the occasion and restore the lost stature of India’s Presidency and lead the country through these troubled and cynical times with his wisdom and vision. 

There is at the moment no clarity about the positions of various national and regional political parties regarding the Presidential candidate and the nuances of number games. Corridors of power in New Delhi keenly await the several political bargains that are likely to unfold in the days to come. Whatever may be the nature of such games that the political parties are gearing up to play, the need of the hour is for them to realize that they should do everything to restore the lost stature of the President’s office. Political parties should resist the temptation of making ‘rubber-stamp’ Presidents out of non-descript, undeserving and unknown entities so as to suit their petty political agendas. While the President may not be non-political, his/her politics should be of a higher stature. This nation deserves that and Hamid Ansari can bring to the office precisely that.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, May 6, 2012. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/May/6/hamid-ansari-for-president-66.asp )