The message from Kashmir's street is clear
Arjimand Hussain Talib
Barack Obama’s sacking of the top American commander, General McChrystal, for Afghanistan last week was preceded by an interesting drama. American commanders had banned use of Microsoft PowerPoint (PP) presentations for all kinds of meetings and briefings in that country. The logic was that PowerPoint presentations for new commanders, or visiting political leaders, were grotesquely misleading in understanding the country’s situation.
International Herald Tribune produced an interesting article on the issue some weeks ago, titled “The enemy has been found, and it is PowerPoint.” The article analyzed why America, in its opinion, was losing the war in Afghanistan. It reasoned that the US Army commanders and the civilian leaders, responsible for the Afghanistan mission, were misinformed about the country. It said that the reason economic and military strategies were not working in stabilizing the country was that PowerPoint presentations formed the backbone of information analysis among the military and the political leadership!
In Afghanistan, a massive developmental effort is on in the country, which includes building of roads, schools, hospitals, drinking water facilities and so on. Yet, in spite of the enormous US investment to win over the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, the country is taking its own course. It may mean anything. Even a NATO deal with the Taliban to take over power in Kabul, based on certain conditions.
Now, back home, look at the mayhem being unleashed by security agencies on the streets of Kashmir. Look at the people’s anger on the streets. On the Internet. Clearly, no strategy of New Delhi seems to work to “win over the Kashmiri hearts and minds.” The streets are seething with anger for the political status quo and the huge military presence as severely as ever. But is New Delhi learning any lessons?
Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has also lately taken to PowerPoint to present the state’s political and economic situation before visiting political leaders of New Delhi. Army commanders and police officers are said to be doing the same.
Omar has won many admirers in New Delhi for his eloquent PP presentations. From the officials of the Planning Commission to the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, Omar’s PP presentations has fans.
PowerPoint is arguably good in displaying statistics. It is also effective in keeping focus while making a point. It is just awesome in highlighting one’s achievements and challenges in a bullet form. But it is miserably bad in presenting an effective analysis of a complex political situation like the one prevalent in J&K, or even Afghanistan, today. Despite its pleasing eloquence, PP easily hides more than what it reveals.
There is something strikingly common between Afghanistan and Kashmir – the US-led coalition tends to believe that economic and social bounties targeted at local populations will win the war of it. New Delhi and the governments in Srinagar have been nursing the same expectations since 1947.
This June was the bloodiest month for the NATO forces in Afghanistan since they started the military campaign in the country in 2001. This June also happens to be the bloodiest so far in Kashmir since Omar Abdullah took over.
Quite often – like when Omar Abdullah was voted to power – India’s political and media establishment wrote off Jammu & Kashmir’s movement for political sovereignty. The possibility of people ever challenging the state’s accession with India was seen to be too bleak. Even as Jammu & Kashmir’s Legislature and the Judiciary – normally two important pillars of a democratic system – remain handicapped in exercising real power, they have been expected to deliver a favorable change for New Delhi. All such premises are being proved wrong on the streets today, just like they were ever since 1947.
New Delhi needs to understand that the policy of doling out a variety of economic benefits to local populations through various methods does not necessarily mean political loyalty has been won. State-sponsored development and welfare programs aimed at aggrieved populations often create a deceptive sense of political loyalty. PowerPoint cannot explain the complex web of the contrary process.
Omar Abdullah has many a time voiced a perception that all trouble in the state basically emanates from, and is confined to, a few pockets in Srinagar. He needs to understand that the reason there is a greater expression of anger and frustration in Srinagar is because its protesters have a sense of security by virtue of its demography and landscape. The reason people in the countryside do not venture out on the roads too much is because they are vulnerable. A strong military grip ensures every protester is called to a military or police camp in the night if a demonstration happens.
Even as hundreds of Srinagar’s protesting boys have been arrested since the last few weeks, streets are not silent. Exactly, the opposite is happening.
Quite often, Omar, and his Srinagar right hand – Ali Sagar – have accused “vested interests” for instigating protests. Completely wrong. People who feel that way need to experience a protest or stone pelting first hand. The point is, most often, these boys do not act on behalf of – or are members of – any party. They are individual parties, who go by their political instincts; nurse a fire, love to vent anger on security forces by slogans and stones, take risks and do not bother about repercussions.
Over the years, a greater interaction of the Kashmiris with the Indian mainland has worked in two distinct ways. At one level it has broadened the horizons of Kashmiri understanding of the idea of India. But at another level, which is significant, the gulf between a common Kashmiri and the Indian state has deepened. That gulf has deepened because a common Kashmiri in India has been made to perceive himself or herself as the ‘other’.
Various acts of violence and terrorism in India, and the state’s security reaction, have compounded this situation. A general culture of Kashmiri witch hunt and public hyper vigilante for them has aggravated that feeling of being the ‘other’, especially among the youngsters.
If one goes by common sense, the intended cultural and political assimilation of Kashmiris with India through the satellite TV, communications technologies like the Internet should have bridged the gap between a Kashmiri youngster and the rest of India.
This generation is artificially pulled by the glitter of a shining India – economically more robust with a great cinema and music. But all these influences are neutralized by the daily experiences of humiliation and feelings by a common Kashmiri of being the ‘other.’ A PowerPoint presentation does not capture these complex political and sociological relations.
And look at the Internet. See the seething anger there. See this newspaper’s mailbox.
PP presentations miserably fail in identifying the hundreds of psychological and political currents and undercurrents in Kashmir’s political system. They fail in portraying the complex grid of multiple loyalties. PP does not address the issue of the latent anger either. PowerPoint also does not depict the complex ideological flip flops driven by psychological impulses. It does not picturise the unpredictable political and ideological cross-overs. It may enhance our graphical understanding of economic benefits matrix driven by government spending and schemes, but it does not necessarily show us the real political outcome.
At the end of it, we need to understand that economic benefits do not necessarily win political loyalties in the long run. The day this is acknowledged in PP presentations, Kashmir and Afghanistan will be on a real road to peace and stability.
(The writer is Online Editor with Greater Kashmir. Feedback at arjimand@greaterkashmir.com)
Monday, June 28, 2010
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Brothers in Arms?
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)