The Politics of Mutual Ruin
Mehbooba Mufti’s visit to the under-construction AIIMS at Awantipora caused a stir in Valley’s political circles and a consternation in the National Conference (NC). While there was nothing strictly. . .
Mehbooba Mufti’s visit to the under-construction AIIMS at Awantipora caused a stir in Valley’s political circles and a consternation in the National Conference (NC). While there was nothing strictly unconstitutional in her visiting a public infrastructure project, the move clearly violated established norms of governance protocol and propriety. It also sets a troubling precedent which legitimately invites accusations of overreach and external orchestration. What made it worse is the lack of even a modicum of civility and cordiality. Scoffing at the “cloudburst” promise would have been fine in a political rally but not in an administered meeting. It lowered the threshold of deference due to a legitimately elected Chief Minister. Also, it undermined his informal authority, a vital compensatory resource in the current setup of curtailed powers. Even Mehbooba Mufti’s recent letter to Omar Abdullah for a coordinated outreach was largely an exercise in optics. The letter was put in public domain before Omar could respond. Genuine political initiatives of this nature are normally pursued quietly through trusted backchannels, not through newspaper headlines. When communication is shaped more for public positioning than for substantive engagement, it deepens distrust rather than building consensus. This approach is self-defeating insofar as it is delegitimising the very office she once held and clearly aspires to occupy again. It is no longer merely about weakening a political rival; she is weakening the very instrument of power she hopes to wield in the future. Omar Abdullah, while letting her get under his skin, is disdainfully dismissive of such transgressions. He unleashes his team of young spokespersons, who in being more loyal than the King, take the standard of political discourse to pedestrian levels. It is now a daily slanging match. It is tragic that two leaders who share enough -- a Valley, a constituency of grievance, a common adversary in Delhi’s indifference – not to have built something lasting. It is schadenfreude politics at its best: when one was in power, the other waits for a chance to pounce. In the razed political landscape of Kashmir, Omar and Mehbooba do not even seem to see the surreal position that they are in. They are no longer enemies or adversaries; they are fellow travellers in a wilderness where politics has been redefined, and rules of the game changed. As it is, there is hardly any ideological difference between the two to justify their visceral antagonism. Both are autonomists. Both are Valley centric. Both are secular in outlook. Both have the same short term political agenda: restoration of statehood. Both have the same long-term hope: some form of special status within the Union. The economic worldview of both leans toward a protectionist, welfare-state model focused on conventional livelihoods. Their economic ideology of protectionism and populism eventually boils down to freebies; some free units of electricity and a dozen LPG cylinders. Yet, they are like the two different dialects of the same language, unable to find a common syntax. Where the two differ and differ vastly is in their political mettle and governance method. And, of course, personal manner. Mehbooba, a decade older than Omar, is a baby boomer. Omar is an archetype Gen X. This strongly influences their social style and political strategies. Mehbooba Mufti reflects a highly collective, and emotionally expressive style. She has built her brand by operating as an activist-politician, grounding her authority in populist movements. Systems are not sacrosanct, outcomes are. Hence, she is comfortable with confrontation and controversy. Omar Abdullah approaches politics in a sanitised manner detached from emotive populism. Having carved out a place for himself as a candid politician, he is comfortable in communicating in a hierarchical but plain-speaking manner. The two have inherited contrasting legacies but similar liabilities which also have a huge bearing on their political conduct. Omar Abdullah has a larger-than-life legacy; a legacy that often becomes a liability. The Delhi Agreement of 1952 comes along with the comedown of 1975 accord. Her legacy of “healing touch” and empathetic governance, even though less powerful, gets sullied by the controversial alliance with the BJP in 2014. To reframe their rivalry: it is not a clash of ideologies or political objectives but a personalisation of the political slugfest and a failure of professional collegiality. It eventually boils down to Omar seeing Mehbooba as an “intruder” and her seeing him as an “inheritor” of an ill-gotten inheritance. In the polarized crucible of Kashmir, it percolates down as a scorched-earth policy between the two political parties. Organisationally, NC cadres view PDP as an “agency-created” interloper designed to dilute its hegemony. In turn, for PDP cadres NC is an ossified establishment whose arrogant leadership has lost touch with the streets. When the two main faces of mainstream politics spend years calling each other liars, betrayers, or worse, it breeds cynicism, abstention, and stooge politics. It is eroding public faith in democratic institutions. Besides weakening the collective bargaining power of political parties with New Delhi. There can be nothing more detrimental for the democratic politics of the Valley than this. If the two cannot transition from being enemies to becoming adversaries, it will lead to a cannibalization of the middle ground in politics. The lack of a civil bridge will allow external forces and internal fissures to widen until the very ground they were fighting over will be wiped out. By their conduct, they are exposing the state to grave risks of intervention at various levels and in the process become instrumentalities of control. The consequences of this missing “civil middle” is catastrophic for the state’s political future. Because the two leaders cannot find a common minimum program, they are perpetually looking towards New Delhi to validate their power against the other. This “triangulation” necessarily weakens the regional voice. It shrinks the valley-centric political space precisely when Kashmir needs a credible, cohesive regional voice. If they had been “adversaries” who spoke to one another, the political blackmail or competitive undercutting that often characterizes Kashmir-Centre relations might have been mitigated. Both sides need to understand that only in a two-party setup, politics is a zero-sum game: one’s rise necessarily means the other’s fall. But with the BJP’s emergence as a strong third force, the two parties’ mutual attacks serve to only weaken each other while the third player gains ground. And it has done so already. A cordial relationship between them is needed to create a “buffer of consensus” on core issues: the restoration of statehood, the revoking of Article 370, the management of the youth bulge, and the economic integration of Jammu with Kashmir. Until Omar and Mehbooba can treat each other as democratic adversaries rather than existential enemies, the politics of mutual ruin will continue to damage the larger cause far more than any external factor. The current political discourse in J&K is fast becoming a race to the bottom for the 10 million people of the Valley. Footnote:In 2006, while I was with the J&K Bank, Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, then Chief Minister, suggested that I facilitate Omar and Mehbooba develop a civil and cordial working relationship. He suggested hosting them socially over dinner, so they get to understand each other. Perhaps it would help them realise that they were political adversaries, not personal enemies. He believed this was important because the two needed each other to define their own political personas and nuance their respective party narratives. Their bitter rivalry was fuelled by a basic misunderstanding: they were articulating the same ideology in different ways, not different ideologies in the same way. Even though the ideological plank of NC and PDP is not different, it needs to be differentiated. Despite his desire, however, the dinner was not to be! To step into the role of political mediator at that time felt like a transgression of my mandate. The author is a Contributing Editor of Greater Kashmir.