Politics Without a Cause

The renowned Ladakhi climate activist Sonam Wangchuk ended his fast after 21 days, a feat in itself even if Ladakh’s demands are far from being met. And there’s little hope they will be in the near to medium future. For if the centre hasn’t been moved by a mass fasting protest led by Wangchuk, it is difficult to see what will. It’s not that protests in Ladakh have just begun: Ladakhis have been on the streets over the past four years. They woke up to the drawbacks of the union territory status a year into raucously celebrating when it was granted.  Ever since they have been demanding restoration of the lost constitutional safeguards besides a full-fledged statehood. But as the response to Wangchuk’s protest shows, the centre is firmly disinclined to make any concessions. 

That said, the point here is not to debate Ladakh’s demands and chances of these being met by the centre: it is to focus on the person of Wangchuk. He has certainly shown a lot of character by fasting for the region’s cause, the like of which hasn’t been witnessed in a long time in India since the 2013 India Against Corruption movement.  Even then the fasting didn’t stretch for three weeks. If anything, this is an instance of genuine leadership, something that isn’t easily available in mainstream politics in India, or for that matter even across apolitical activism. Much more so in Kashmir where mainstream politics has largely been anything but genuine. 

In the Valley, the mainstream politicians generally don’t think it is their place to struggle for a cause. Their politics has hardly been a site for principles and ideology. It is no place for struggle and sacrifice. People don’t join it for conviction or a cause. Their reasons to join are generally self-serving in nature: to enjoy a good life and some petty power. Such political parties may model themselves as a movement for a larger good, but, in practice, they are not fully in control of even the delivery of basic governance, their primary job. A significant proportion of the people who run these political outfits are opportunists. Their words are posturing, their deeds are phony. As for the high-sounding agendas of the parties, they are more of an electoral necessity than a political ideology. 

This politics, as a result, doesn’t lend itself  to a fight for a bigger cause. It offers  deep structural impediments for such a pursuit: For its survival, it has to run with its local constituency and hunt with New Delhi. This has created a breed of leaders who defer to New Delhi’s conditions and have, in turn, been shaped by them.

Where does this kind of politics leave Kashmir? Nowhere. As it is obvious, this politics is good for nothing, largely unrepresentative. It abdicates its basic role of articulating the interests of its people, let alone being responsive to the sentiment on the ground. The latter it has often found beyond its moral authority to represent.  This politics can make a severely limited set of demands, most of these in the domain of development. This is perhaps why, at a time, when Kashmir more than ever needs leadership, no one is ready to step up to the plate. 

It is true that Kashmir’s political sphere has for decades operated along two paradigms – separatist and the mainstream, the latter being an euphemism for being pro-India. But while separatists often peddled their cause aggressively, the political mainstream has generally fought shy of espousing its own ideology, presuming it didn’t resonate with a large majority of people. However, such an approach has been more of a cop-out than a normal practice of politics. For, between separatism and the pro-India ideologies, there are numerous secular pro-people causes in need of a good fight. But not only has the mainstream chosen to unsee them but also preferred a path of least resistance whenever it is time to stand and struggle for anything. They would rather prefer easy power over a drawn struggle with chances of going to jail. 

This sort of politics hardly speaks to its people and goes on regardless. It is also certain to become irrelevant sooner or later. And, of course, it is easily replaceable by a politics that makes common cause with people. For proof, we need only to see what happened to the Congress in India in a different and much larger context. Or for that matter to Sharifs and Bhuttos in Pakistan. Although, they are back in power we know how, Truth is that genuine politics dies the moment it sees power as an end rather than as a means to safeguard and secure the larger interest of people. For example, look at Wangchuk. It doesn’t matter that he is not a politician.

• Views expressed in the article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the editorial stance of Kashmir Observer 

Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group: Join Now

MONTHLY	Rs 100
YEARLY	Rs 1000
LIFETIME	Rs 10000

CLICK FOR DETAILS