Statesmanship, not brinkmanship (The Kashmir problem as handled by the NDA govt.)

Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - begin learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!

Statesmanship, not brinkmanship (The Kashmir problem as handled by the NDA govt.)

---

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

---

• Failed ULB elections, 2018: The public of India seems accustomed to crisis in Jammu and Kashmir, and a sign of it was the absence of any debate on the near-zero voter turnout for municipal elections in J&K. Total participation was 35.1%, and valley saw in single-digits!
• What does this boycott show? If in 2014 the state witnessed the higher-ever turnout, and now the lowest-ever, there's a clear message - people have democratically expressed their anger at the whole system's failure. Do not ignore their voice.
• What else could have been done? Any delaying of the elections would have been undemocratic. Sadly, the only way was for the BJP to temper its political ambitions.
• The full story since 2014: 

1. A resurgent militancy was seen in 2014, when Modi took charge.
2. The BJP focussed on deriving maximum political mileage from this situation. 
3. It went very aggressive, and used its typical maximalist style. It went for a communal-coalition inside the State, and outside the state, it keeps screaming about ending the "special status of J&K". 
4. Net result? The whole state is destabilised, and security too has been.

• Why Central Govt must be seen as benign in Jammu and Kashmir? The security situation gives it far more powers in J&K than anywhere else in India, and hence the Union Govt. (and the party ruling it) must be seen as benign (and friendly) in J&K otherwise alienation will happen. The BJP went maximalist in politics, thereby upsetting all equations (while enjoying the tremendous powers as the Union Govt. wielding the stick in J&K).
• The birth of militancy in 1980s: 

1. Indira Gandhi's adoption of a strong political approach. 
2. The accord with Sheikh Abdullah (1975) had finalised Kashmir's accession to India. The Congress CM was asked to step down and let Abdullah take over. 
3. As she lost the 1977 general elections, she was desperate to gain ground wherever she could. 
4. The Congress started a steady campaign against the Abdullah govt. and that weakened both the parties, allowing militancy the space to grow! 
5. The 1979 Iranian revolution gave motivation to Kashmiri elements to mobilise. They became prominent by 1980s. But Indira continued her political attacks and replaced the Farooq Abdullah govt. in 1984.

• Losing credibility: Kashmiris lost faith in both sides soon ('Congress is power-hungry, Abdullah is weak'). Extremists stepped in.
• Extremists in the Valley: As the Muslim United Front won 32% votes in 1987 in Kashmir valley, Rajiv Gandhi went for another accord with Abdullah (both became allies). But the horrible 1987 elections had poll-rigging and those who were angry at a stolen elections joined insurgency.
• Maximalist approach backfires: The Union Govt. tried to go for security gains as well as political mileage and it backfired. Congress failed badly (same story repeated now).
• A worse situation now: The BJP is making constant political gains, and the security situation is deteriorating in parallel! It is time to sacrifice political maximalism, as the near-zero voter turnout has shown the potential for more horrors ahead.
• Summary : The present situation in the state of Jammu and Kashmir
  reminds us of the historical lesson - don't be a maximalist in this state at all.

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

Join UPSC Self Prep course | Online Course (PT Gurukul)  | Covid Special Course | Join PT courses

* Content sourced from free internet sources (publications, PIB site, international sites, etc.). Take your own subscriptions. Copyrights acknowledged.