Congress must realise the dangers of being in a Kashmir state of mind

Former Union Home Minister P Chidambaram said on Sunday, following his disingenuous suggestion the day before that azaadi means autonomy for Kashmiris and since the latter is within the constitutional framework, the former should be seriously considered, that the Prime Minister was in effect seeing ghosts where none existed when he laid into the Congress for undermining the mainstreaming of the Valley and disrespecting the sacrifices of India's security forces in the violence-infested State. The Congress worthy then went on to imply that not said a single word he uttered on Saturday was wrong. Well, we have news for Chidambaram. First, he virtually rewrote the history of the past 70 years and the sovereignty-threatening developments since terrorism in the Valley began over two decades ago by conflating the demands for azaadi and autonomy. Secondly, he betrayed the old establishment's mindset when he subsumed the views of the Hindu, Buddhist and moderate Muslim population of the State of Jammu and Kashmir into the purported demand of hardline Valley Muslims for azaadi which is autonomy in PC lexicon. Thirdly, he referred to Article 370 as the framework within which azaadi/autonomy should be considered for Jammu & Kashmir at a time when civil society challenges on the validity, constitutionality and desirability of both Article 35A (before the Supreme Court) and Article 370 are finally being debated extensively rather than being suppressed as Congress regimes at the Centre have done for decades. Fourthly, his statement was at least partly aimed at signaling his party's simpatico stand to its former, and now apparently potential, ally for the next Assembly election in Jammu and Kashmir, the National Conference, which, in turn, was quick to take the cue proffered and declare that if demanding pre-1952 autonomy was considered being anti-national, so be it. lastly, Chidambaram was not making any larger point or initiating a debate on the federal versus unitary aspects of the Indian Constitution as it relates to Centre-State relations, which is the only acceptable context in which to discuss greater/lesser autonomy for States, but iterating the tired narrative of separateness, even if distinct from separatism, fed to Indians who may have a different mode of worship from a majority of their co-citizens since 1947.

Of course, the former Union Minister has a right to his view; but what would be of interest to the voting classes is what all of this says for the Congress, which officially distanced itself from his statements though without in any manner rejecting and/or condemning them as unacceptable. The suspicion is that a powerful, dominant faction of the party is convinced that consolidating Muslim/minority community support by taking stands on issues that are perceived to be in alignment with those communities' perceived and assiduously fostered separateness, stitching up electoral alliances, working to retain support among the largesse-dependent (for historical reasons) classes across all communities and hoping that apart from states where regional parties hold sway any benefits accruing from anti-incumbency would come their way is the path back to power. The Congress has an unalienable right to adopt whichever strategy it deems most effective to try and ensure that comes to pass. But saner elements within should surely insist upon the party leadership that fishing in waters that are inimical to India's national interest is just not acceptable; or perhaps that is hoping for too much and it must be left to the electorate to deliver the message via the ballot box.