India needs Hurriyat more than Hurriyat needs India

The recent development in the form of Hurriyat leaders belonging to various factions snubbing the suo moto panel of Indian parliamentarians has diabolically been blown out of proportion. Some of the mainstream political state leadership especially the one in power voluntarily caught up in an unholy alliance with the ultra-rightist central government have inordinately criticized the Hurriyat amalgamation, branding them as epitome of non-Kashmiriyat and non-insaniyat against the latter’s stance to boycott the all parties Indian delegation in general and those who had knocked at the doors in particular. The state and the central leadership have gone all guns blazing against the Hurriyat for their repelling attitude even if neither of the two (both state and the centre) had sent any official invitation to Hurriyat (state government did send Hurriyat an invitation but as party presidency not as Chief ministerial nomination).

In response to this snub, both the governments, Centre in particular have said enough of carrots let’s feed them sticks. Subsequently, there are some serious speculations that there will be a dramatic reduction of various governmental funds and facilities to Hurriyat, including funds in the form of pension, travel allowances, medical allowances and of course the security expenditure, a financial brunt jointly borne by both the state and the centre (as proclaimed by the recent governmental revelations, but denied publicly by the representatives of Hurriyat as an allegation to defame them). But the million dollar question that haunts every Kashmiri and obviously every sane person, if Hurriyat have an anti-Indian agenda, if Hurriyat are sponsored by Pakistan (as alleged by the state and central political machinery), then why on earth does the government (state and centre) provide them such financial and non financial perks? Answer is simple ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­yet very complex.

The modus operandi of every state round the globe these days is two pronged. First, the state behaviour based on national interests and good governance, for example, development, infrastructure building, rule of law, democratic institutionalisation, sound foreign policy, judicial and legislative sustenance and revival, and lot of other administrative consignments. Even in any perfect state (just for the sake of argument because finding a perfect state nowadays is like Mehbooba’s asinine analogy of 95-5 percent, in other words ridiculously stupid) a smooth governance somehow sounds dull and a bit fishy but most importantly vulnerable to a mass uprising any time considering the fact that present day global politics is dominated by the Realist or Neo Realist school of thought wherein states and their national interests are of paramount importance and then come other affairs concerning public welfare if at all. A disordered or a leaderless section of masses is the bigge­st threat for any government no matter how so called “civilized” the society may be. Worried about a threat of a large scale anti government or anti state mass uprising any time, the Second mode of operation of a state comes in to play, establishment of a reactionary institutionalization, which overtly criticizes the government but covertly orchestrated and managed by the government itself does the best possible job of crisis management.

By default the people of the state take this second mode of operation, which could be anything starting from a “pressure group” or a “formal/informal” political association, as the representative of their political, social or economic grievances. Consequently, people feel secure and satisfied to an extent as long as this second mode of state operation (pressure group etc) is functioning and anti-government in nature, thus taking a considerable amount of steam/energy out of the people because the people somehow feel that even if they are not actively involved in the political and diplomatic process yet they have a representation, thus an excuse to relax a bit. So this reactionary institution (the second mode of state operation) strategically leads to anger management and reduction of active participation of people and therefore gives the state a chance to breath easy. In such kind of political exercise, everything is predetermined, for example, the reactionary institution is offered a luxury of criticizing government only up to a certain limit because state is aware of the fact that anything beyond that limit might end up in a political catastrophe and most importantly an active involvement of people which no state wants.

Now let’s apply this political model to present day Kashmir crisis. The pragmatic description of this whole political and diplomatic exercise can be best understood through a basic and simple mathematical calculation. If the present day resistance movement can be hypothetically measured on a scale of 10, and there is always a mark, a threshold (limit) up to which every government is ok if not comfortable. If that threshold is let’s say 6 in case of Kashmir, as long as the resistance movement which is indigenous in nature led by some kind of leadership (here in this case Hurriyat) stays below 6 or at par with 6, the state gets worried but somehow feels that it is within control. But when this movement crosses the threshold of 6 and goes beyond, that is when states are worried. In case of Kashmir, accidently it is Hurriyat that happens to do this job of a reactionary institution (or a pressure group) and the state of India very well knows that not only does Hurriyat have a considerable amount of people’s representation but Hurriyat can also be best substituted as that pressure group to do the job of anger management.

Therefore, it is very much obvious that with the absence of Hurriyat, the present mass uprising has every chance to cross the threshold of 6 and inflate above to 7 or 8 or even 9 or 10 who knows, such is the anger among the people right now. To conclude, state government (and central government too) might blow the trumpets against the Hurriyat leadership for not being hospitable and stuff, but the unprecedented fact is that India needs Hurriyat more than Hurriyat needs India right now. As they say, “resistance movement” without any leadership means anarchy and chaos and it is better to be dealing with a weak leadership (Hurriyat leadership for sure is strong if not very strong) than a state of anarchy wherein everybody is a leader in his or her own rights.

So even if both the governments (state and central) hurl aggressive and intimidating remarks at Hurriyat but logics say that such kind of gestures is mere rhetoric or may be desperation and nothing else. It could be because PDP/BJP led state government was disappointed that Hurriyat did not talk to the Indian delegates and by pressurizing the Hurriyat this time around after the episode happened, they perhaps think that if the parliamentarian delegate or for that matter any other delegate from India might come again which looks very likely, Hurriyat should do the talking that time. Now the only thorn in the flesh of the state right now is that the present resistance movement has already crossed the scale of the threshold that too in presence of Hurriyat, imagine how precarious it is going to get if Hurriyat is absent. Even more intricate situation for the state is that people really are very hawkish and observant this time about Hurriyat since a good portion of people believe that it was the Hurriyat leadership that disappointed them during the uprisings of 2008 and 2010 (which I personally don’t subscribe to).

Present Indian/Hurriyat interface reminds me of the flight announcements made while flying in a plane, the “Life vest” under the seat of every passenger…. For India, Hurriyat is the life vest and emergency landing has already been alarmed now, will the pilot take control of the plane and most importantly how buoyant the life vest is only time will tell.

Never ever in the write-up anywhere, I meant Hurriyat leadership has been established by the Indian state as the second mode of its operation rather it is just that Hurriyat with all its animosity against the state as well as central governments accidently and unknowingly fills the criteria.

0 Comment(s)