Our “I” problem A culture of mutual accommodation and democratic values are wonderful things for any nation. So do we have that culture in Kashmir? The answer, let us be honest to confess, lies somewhere in the middle. Some of the world’s best orators are found in the world’s newest country of South Sudan. Even school children sound like Martin Luther and stun you with their electrifying and flawless speeches. Having long lived in a culture of war and survival struggles, they endlessly talk of heroism and comradeship. Their articulation leaves you speechless. But, alas, good speeches seldom make good nations. Barely three years after the country’s independence South Sudan is today in the vortex of a civil war with no end in sight. Political reconciliation is elusive because the new-born nation could not sow the seeds of a culture of tolerance, accommodation and societal democracy. It is a far more devastated country today because it didn’t invest time and efforts to build institutions that could nurture democracy and inclusiveness. But why should we cite South Sudan’s example? Talking of South Sudan is important because it emphasises the importance of societal culture of democracy, tolerance and accommodation to people who aspire to be like South Sudan. To cite its example is critical because without a culture of accommodation and societal democracy, people can go nowhere. Coming back to Kashmir, when we go back to our medieval history we see we have always been nice and decent people. We havent a history of bloody civil wars or violent discords. We have been very simple people, caught between the struggles of day-to-day survival and self-rule. Our pre-1931 times documented by the British Settlement Commissioner of Kashmir Sir Walter Lawrence in his famous book The Valley of Kashmir doesnt seem to suggest we were intolerant or non-accommodative people. Kashmirs organised social and political mobilisation seems to have begun in the post 1931 period with our revolt against the Dogra autocratic rule. And from there begins our history of organised political parties and the evolution of organised political dissent. It is from there our culture of tolerance came under stress in the face of new political ambitions. The post-1931 history has some interesting insights on whether we could evolve as a democratic and accommodative society. It is a known fact that the then Muslim Conference-turned-National Conference was the main political party that steered Kashmir’s political movement. Its leader Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah is said not to have been the man who really liked the idea of democracy as a personal and party value. A lot of people remember Late Abdullah as someone whose political functioning bordered authoritarian. His level of tolerance for opposing viewpoints wasnt enviable either. To be fair, there is little evidence in our post-1931 history to suggest that our other political or socio-religious movements practised democratic values. Our sher-bakra saga is well-known and hardly needs a mention. The Plebiscite Front and even the Jamaat-e-Islami could not crystallise and sustain as major political movements because values of democracy were not fully embraced. There are few instances to show that other groups promoted accommodation, mutual tolerance and political reconciliation. Our post 1989 period wasnt helpful in promoting a culture of tolerance and societal democracy either. The gun culture damaged Kashmir’s long-cherished values of compassion, amity and mutual accommodation. That culture gave birth to new political values that left hardly any room for opposing political beliefs. During that period, powerful politico-militant forces sought to dominate and even consume other groups and their ideologies, often through coercive means. Almost all major politico-militant groups sought political hegemony over others rather than mutual accommodation. There are definitely instances when groups and parties demonstrated mutual accommodation and reconciliation. But the fact is that we were so divided and sans a democratic culture of dialogue and reconciliation that those isolated examples didn’t matter much. The creation of the Hurriyat Conference marked an important step towards political reconciliation and accommodation in Kashmir in the tumultuous 1990s. It wasn’t an ordinary thing for myriad parties with different political ideologies and goals coming together on one platform. Coming together on a platform and evolving as a democratic platform are two different things, nevertheless. Both Hurriyat factions today are not known to have democratic systems of consultation and decision-making. Same is the case with almost all pro-unionist (mainstream) parties. And this culture has had its impact on our almost all other spheres of our life. We have hardly any successful examples of platforms with model styles of democratic functioning. Some people may argue that accommodation might mean compromise – compromise on ones ideology, beliefs and values. That may be true to some extent. The fact is that between two extremes there is always plenty of middle ground where reconciliation takes place. We seldom apply thought to explore that middle ground. We seldom explore ways to initiate meaningful dialogue. Ours is a culture where all of us want to speak at the same time at every place. We don’t want to listen to others. We don’t use empathy to understand others and their situations. A culture of democracy doesnt mean only elections. A culture of democracy requires painstaking efforts by all organised political and social movements to cultivate empathy and mutual understanding. It requires sowing attitudes of tolerance. It demands accommodation of dissenting voices and opposing viewpoints. It also demands democratic functioning and resisting temptations of concentration of power and authority. Divergence of opinion or approaches is intrinsic to human cognition and behaviour. We can’t wish that away. For a culture of societal democracy to take roots, it is important for all its organised political and social movement to practise democracy in the first place. As much as we need to embrace a culture of accommodation, we also need to learn a decent language of expressing opposition or dissent too. The “K” problem would continue to be a big problem as long as our “I” problem remains! As simple as that. (Dateline Srinagar, AHT, Daily Greater Kashmir, 11 May; 2014)
Posted on: Sun, 11 May 2014 03:01:11 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015