After the bubbly, bites of reality

Since participatory democracy and governance constitute the core of its research and advocacy, the Institute of Social Sciences (ISS) took up its study of the Jammu & Kashmir elections. The first batch of 17 ISS observers left for Jammu & Kashmir with a lot of trepidation, ifs and buts and dos and don’ts, but as one observer put it, ‘‘The moment we reached there, all of these melted away one by one.’’ The team members faced no hostility or threat from any quarters.

Some of the foreign mediapersons were heard saying, ‘‘It is good. India is finally holding elections in Kashmir.’’ That may be an extreme case of individual ignorance, but the kind of international attention the elections attracted gave the impression it was the first democratic election in the state!

The 47-member team of the ISS which visited 56 of the 87 constituencies found no apparent evidence of rigging of poll percentages. In Srinagar, there were some booths which recorded zero per cent voting. In most other booths, the voting was in single digits. It is the best proof of the fairness of the poll process.

A growing hiatus between the young and old voters and the urban and rural areas was equally evident. The large turnout of voters in some rural areas in the Kashmir Valley disproves the general perception that it was fear that kept the voters at home. The impression that the ISS study team gained was that nearer the voter was to the city, the farther he/she was from the polling booth.

The picture that emerges is complex, and even seemingly mutually contradictory; hence the need to be careful in analysing the outcome. As they say, there are three sides to every story: your side, my side and the truth.

It will be wrong to assume that the voter has rejected the National Conference. The vote is against former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah, whose legacy was a drift towards an imperium of arrogance and self-righteousness. Governance was reduced to chicanery. The good performance by the People’s Democratic Party can be largely ascribed to its position favouring dialogue with separatist forces as well as Pakistan.

The dilemma facing the voter in the Valley was similar to what committed revolutionaries and disillusioned insurgents often face ‘‘without a revolution’’. Jacques Derrida calls it an ‘‘aporia’’. With no available options desirable, Derrida maintains, ‘‘one confronts an aporia, an undecidable and ungrounded political space, where no path is clear and green, where no certain knowledge opens up the way in advance, where no decision is already made”.

The majority of the Kashmiri people, irrespective of whether they voted or not, are in favour of azadi but they are not very clear about the nature of azadi they desire. To some, azadi is another name for good politics and good governance, to others it is freedom from both India and Pakistan but to most azadi is a desperate cri de coeur in defence of a particular way of life.

It will therefore be wrong to assume that those who voted are against azadi and those who didn’t are for azadi. As a report by Professor B S Baviskar, an eminent sociologist and an ISS Fellow, suggests:‘‘The ideal solution of the Kashmir problem in the eyes of the Kashmiri academic circles is azadi. The people have had bitter experience with India, Going to Pakistan will be worse.’’ However, when pressed, added Baviskar, ‘‘they broadly hit at maximum autonomy for Kashmir as a way out’’.

The Centre needs to address critical issues like peace and normalcy in the State, good and transparent governance and development. There is need to open up fresh channels of dialogue with separatist groups as well as Pakistan. The problem in Kashmir cannot be wished away by merely holding free and fair elections and changing the label of government. It is imperative to guard against premature triumphalism.

As Charles Darwin says, ‘‘All things start in vision and mystery and end in politics.’’