Kashmir and Ayodhya

New Delhi can capitalise on an environment of compromise

Arjimand Hussain Talib

There is a sixth century fable which tells about a boy playing in the fields, and who got stung by a nettle. The boy ran home to his mother, telling her that he had just touched that nasty weed, and it had stung him.

“It was just your touching it my boy,” said the mother, “that caused it to sting you; the next time you meddle with a nettle, grasp it tightly, and it will do you no hurt.”

There is a key lesson in this story on why embracing a new approach on Kashmir by New Delhi and Islamabad may not be as catastrophic as made to be. Something very significant happened at the end of the week. There are some real openings for hope.

The Allahabad High Court’s verdict on the Babri Masjid demolition case is arguably far from perfect. But the response from Indian masses has been unexpectedly mature – belying the apprehensions about mass unrest.

There is a viewpoint that the reason there was no unrest is because the verdict has been interpreted as being overly favorable to the majority Hindu community. But this viewpoint is questionable. Both the parties to the dispute have already said that they are dissatisfied with the verdict, and, hence, will appeal before the Supreme Court.

The fact is that despite the differing perceptions, the overwhelming public opinion is that of accommodation. There were no mass celebrations or expressions of disquiet from any side. Indian intellectuals are saying that the reason for this attitude is that India has actually come a long way since 1992. The generation that was believed to be driven by religious jingoism and passion seems to have really been subdued by the new culture of accommodation and tolerance. India, there is a widely-held belief, has changed.

One of the classic responses to the verdict was heard from Indian Supreme Court’s leading lawyer Rajeev Dhawan, who called the Allahabad High Court’s verdict as a “Panchayati style justice.” He opined that he saw the verdict based on a compromise solution rather than basic principles of natural justice. Even as he argues that the legal process on the case was supposed to establish the ownership of the land in dispute, and not go beyond the standard legal practice, he acknowledges the decision as “consensual.”

Then there are other viewpoints, which are besides the point here. One being that the verdict is patently unjust with Muslims. Two, that despite the court granting possession rights to the Muslim Waqf Board over one third of the land, in practice the land will be actually used by the Hindus.

There is another opinion which believes that the matters of faith cannot be subject to legal scrutiny and analysis. And that religious beliefs are beyond the worldly legal considerations of proof and legal logic.

People are entitled to have their own opinions, but the point here to make is different. The environment of peaceful consideration of the judgment in India – if not its complete acceptance - makes a strong case for an out-of-box thinking on Kashmir today.

There are always people who have been propounding doomsday scenarios in case New Delhi chooses to think beyond that traditional ‘box.’ The theories surrounding that doomsday scenario may well be a myth if the response to an extremely sensitive issue like the Babri Masjid verdict is anything to go by.

There are compelling reasons why thinking out of the box is a dire necessity today.

The happenings since 2008 in Kashmir in general and those since June 11 this year in particular have changed many things. The gulf between an average Kashmir and the Indian state has deepened considerably. For India, the biggest matter of worry must be the estrangement of Kashmir’s ‘generation next’, whose thinking has gone even beyond what their elders have nursed.

It is very much within the hard and soft power of the Indian state to manage the brewing alienation and unrest in Kashmir. But it needs to come in terms with the reality that it cannot resolve this issue as such. It will always have a crowd available in Kashmir which provides its rule a critical mass necessary to keep things going, but it is unlikely that it will be able to create a respectable acceptance and legitimacy to its current brand of rule in Kashmir.

Then there is the external image factor. India – despite its oft-talked about vices of mass deprivation, caste system and alienated poor communities – is seen as one of the emerging global economic powers, if not a political or military one. It is mostly respected for its democracy and a political culture which are not to be found everywhere. But Kashmir dents its image of being a land of Gandhi and Buddha.

And look how far people are going about this country. An article in Jerusalem Post “Why isn’t India a pariah state?” by Rob Brown on 19 September explains that. Rob wrote “But what the world is never told by The New York Times, nor by most other supposedly liberal organs, is that New Delhi’s response to such civil disobedience has been far more savage and brutal than anything authorized in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, leading in the past to serious armed insurrection (often incited by Pakistan).”

And then there are pragmatic Indians themselves. Consider this thought from a recent essay by Pankaj Mishra, “The killing fields of Kashmir dwarf those of Palestine and Tibet. In addition to the everyday regime of arbitrary arrests, curfews, raids and checkpoints enforced by nearly 700,000 Indian soldiers, the valley’s 4 million Muslims are exposed to extrajudicial execution, rape and torture, with such barbaric variations as live electric wires inserted into the p----.”

So let the nettle be held firmly. And sure nothing is going to happen.