Why BJP-PDP divorce in Kashmir was bound to happen
Notwithstanding their ideological pretensions, there was nothing unholy or unnatural about the PDP-BJP alliance in Jammu and Kashmir.And regardless of the spin the two parties put both while getting into bed together, and after their break-up, it was a purely political deal for political purposes, just like any other such deal anywhere else in the country — Karnataka comes to mind immediately.
Coalition logic
On paper at least, there was logic in the coalition. First, the math thrown up by the state election meant that short of going in for another election, this was the only workable coalition. Second, the fact that PDP predominantly represented the Valley and BJP Jammu region meant that their constituencies didn’t overlap, and to that extent they were complementary to each other, at least insofar as J&K was concerned. Finally, the fractured and regionally split mandate meant that this coalition promised all regions representation in the state government. But while the math and logic commended the coalition, the chemistry militated against it. In the end, it was negative chemistry and the fact that the BJP’s national political interests conflicted with its obsession for being part of the J&K government that led to the break-up.
Forget the nationalist gloss that the BJP is putting on its decision, the bottom line is that the coalition wasn’t working on the ground. While the PDP that failed to bring around its constituency to support the coalition, the BJP’s core constituency also sulked over the compromise with what it saw as a soft separatist party. After a three-year-long roller-coaster cohabitation, the coalition had indeed become untenable — politically, it was damaging both parties which felt that continuing with the alliance would only bring diminishing returns; the governance was feckless and administration was dysfunctional; the security situation was deteriorating by the day and the government was unable to arrest the slide; ideologically, the incongruity of the alliance was becoming increasingly unmanageable.
The talk of imposing the Governor’s rule had been in the air for months. To be fair to both parties, at least at the top leadership level, efforts were made to cut some slack for the partners on controversial issues — among other things, withdrawing cases against stone-pelters, the position taken by the government on the Article 35A issue, and of course, the Ramzan ceasefire. The failure of the ceasefire, not just in terms of the attacks that took place but also in terms of the inability of the PDP to initiate a political reconciliation process of any sort, seemed to be the last straw for the alliance.
A big part of the problem was that the PDP was unable to end its “soft on separatists” politics. In fact, in her press conference after the BJP withdrew from the coalition, Mehbooba Mufti alluded to all that her party had done to provide relief and even succour to the separatist/terrorist gang. The PDP’s continuing flirtation with the separatists and terrorists was proving to be very damaging for the BJP in rest of India, robbing it of one of its self-arrogated USPs of being tough on national security.
With the alliance now broken, both parties will play to their galleries — the PDP has already started singing the tune of how it had tried to protect the people from a heavy-handed crackdown, while the BJP is blowing its trumpet on how the government will now go hell for leather after the terrorists. The problem, however, is that the political flight path in the state remains riven with uncertainty. The BJP seems muddled about the roadmap for the future. The party’s point-man on Kashmir has declared that “in order to bring situation under control, we have decided that is it time... for a spell of the Governor’s rule. After the situation is restored, we will consider what to do in the future…”
Future roadmap
Sounds good in theory but the situation is unlikely to be “restored” or “stabilised” in weeks or months, and may even take a few years. Going in for a fresh mandate isn’t possible in the foreseeable future. After all, if it wasn’t possible to hold a by-election in the Lok Sabha constituency vacated by the chief minister, then holding state-wide elections seems inconceivable any time soon.
Even if by some miracle the situation evolves in a way that allows for elections to be held in the next few months, it will only mean going back to where we started when the Governor’s rule was imposed. This is because without first dismantling the ecosystem that nurtures and sustains separatism and terrorism — cleansing the administration, weeding out subversives and agent provocateurs, demolishing the funding networks of separatists, detoxifying the educational institutions, all of which will take a lot of doing — restoring the political process will tantamount to repeating the entire sordid cycle once again.
Political games
But a prolonged Governor’s, or President’s rule, will bring with it its own problems. Once the initial euphoria over the end of an increasingly dysfunctional, corrupt and unpopular government is over, discontent with the bureaucratic dispensation will invariably start to set in. At that stage, there will no longer be the buffer of a political leadership to take the flak for non-delivery of services and non-redressal of grievances. The entire ire will be directed on New Delhi. We would also do well to remember that restoring the political process in 1996 after a long spell on Central rule, has often been touted as a signal achievement, something we have used often to our advantage in international forums.
The Indian state must use the opportunity that the political crisis has offered to fix the many things that are broken in the state. More importantly, once the situation is retrieved, we shouldn’t make the mistake of lifting our eye off the ball and letting things slide again. Finally, all parties must eschew the temptation of playing silly political games of the sorts played in the 1980s which pushed things over the edge.
(Courtesy of Mail Today)