Can Geelani, Mirwaiz, Abdullahs, Muftis, et al agree to agree?
DATELINE SRINAGAR
By: Arjimand Hussain Talib
A few days back, The New York Times reproduced a power point image of a stakeholder analysis done by the United States in Afghanistan. The image was bizarrely complex, making it beyond normal human comprehension. US political and military analysts shared jokes about the image. They saw it the most apt description of ‘a complexity called Afghanistan’, and also the reason why the US was not winning the war there.
The image had hundreds of stakeholders – political parties, jirgas, militias, drug cartels, civil services, police, local army, foreign armies, central government, local governments, media, religious groups, tribal chiefs, NGOs, et al - denoted as points in the image. The points were joined by a complex web of lines, which crossed, crisscrossed and double crossed across the image, sending brains into a state of tizzy.
Now imagine if we were to do a similar stakeholder analysis for J&K state, what would be the end product? Would a power point image depicting our situation be really different than that of Afghanistan?
Quite likely, our image will also be a complex web of varied actors, joined and separated by relationships, shared visions and disagreements. Lines would also show alignments. Some would symbolize disagreements. Some points and lines would show multiple visions, multiple relations and multiple loyalties.
In a nutshell, we may have to refer to the standard stakeholder analysis guidebook, which has a disclaimer: stakeholder analysis is not a helpful tool in understanding stakeholders and their stakes when the subjects - barring a few exceptions - are a free floating lot!
To have a complex stakeholder analysis image is bad in itself. A simpler image is a depiction of how simple and less complex our life is - as simple as that. An image to the contrary, obviously, refers to the contrary.
Jammu & Kashmir’s problem is that its stakeholder analysis gets all the more complex with each passing year. Every year there is a new addition of stakeholders, stakes and their relationships. Our collective catastrophe is aggravating. Kashmiri people are losing their spirit. There is a strong feeling that it is time to make a new beginning. There are some irreparable losses too. Some will take a long time to overcome.
We have talked a lot about the economic and social costs of the raging conflict and political instability J&K is in since decades. That is a colossal loss, we all know. But can we quantify the spiritual and psychological loss we are suffering?
Living a life of uncertainty and darkness for sixty long years – even longer than that – is a human catastrophe. A lack of certainty about the future is breeding sick minds in Kashmir. A lack of direction is breeding a strong sense of pessimism.
Perpetual insecurity is breeding newer kind of disorders, which are impacting people’s genes. Psychological disorders are manifesting in physiological problems – which no research has been able capture or seek to fix so far. And it has not something to do with one generation or two alone; we are passing on adapted abnormalities through our genes to our coming generations too. It is a kind of epidemic which we need to talk about now.
Lately, the Muftis have been calling the pro-azadi groups to join hands for a ‘common cause’. The latter have shrugged off the suggestion. Mirwaiz Umar asked Geelani to come along. The latter too chose to take own path. Looking broadly, there are hardly any alignments or broad agreements to see in Kashmir today. People, groups and parties are disintegrating. A chain reaction of sorts is making the larger political goal look fuzzy. The irony is that Kashmir now has so many political voices, often working at cross purposes, that achieving political goals has become difficult. It is a party time for the foreign ruler.
In an environment where the mighty ruler can’t be overcome by force or by self ruin (like hartals) can disparate political voices help achieve political justice? Is there nothing in political terms that Geelani, Mirwaiz, Abdullahs, Muftis, Yasin, Sajjad, Shabir, Nayeem etc. can agree on? Is their vision for their land so disparate that they can’t even begin from one point?
Thinking of the impossible, sometimes, isn’t too naïve. The situation in Jammu & Kashmir - in particular the Kashmir Valley and the Muslim majority districts in Jammu – has reached a point which demands an honest introspection by the state’s key political players. And, finally, action.
What are the hurdles that come in the way of realizing the common dream of a politically free and economically sovereign Jammu & Kashmir? Between the extremes of political positions, are in-between political tangibles impossible to conceive? And what are the differences, by the way? Political? Personal?
What are the complexities? Are they fixations? Obsessions? Clash of ideologies? Clash of egos? Or a mix of these?
Disagreement of thought and approaches is a natural trait of the human race. There can be no utopia where all the people agree with each other all the times in all the circumstances. Disagreement is but natural.
Agreements over a broad range of issues amongst a broad spectrum of political thought are easier said than done, but not impossible.
Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah’s long struggle to reclaim J&K’s lost political sovereignty came to naught for many reasons. One reason had, of course, some thing to do with his political ambitions. Second was the polity itself. Whenever he was imprisoned by New Delhi, replacements were always handy. Did Sadiq, Mir Qasim, Ghulam Muhammad Shah and others come from the moon? Is today’s political environment any different?
If we deeply analyse J&K’s political environment, we realize the political status quo is entrenched as never before. There was a time when finding a replacement to a particular political formation in Srinagar wasn’t that easy. Today there is a wide array of political forces to choose from.
Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s vision of a political utopia is not bad in itself. But do today’s circumstances support overnight shift to such a political system? What about application of hikmah, which has been applied since ages by Muslim scholars, conquerors and leaders? The political system which the Abdullahs and the Muftis are part of can’t be a recipe for stability. The unjust political status quo in J&K can’t be a solution. An idea for political utopia doesn’t work in today’s world of acute interdependence and softer borders either.
A time has come when Kashmiris’ decades-old suffering must go. A time has arrived when its people desperately need a life of political freedom, dignity, friendship and a mutually beneficial engagement with its neighbors. There has to be a new relation based on shared visions and interests.
(The columnist is Online Editor with Greater Kashmir/Kashmir Uzma. Feedback at arjimand@greaterkashmir.com)
