‘K’ Solution: power and tact

RSS chief—Mohan Bhagwat last week prescribed power and tact as ‘K’ solution. While he defined power ‘’Shakti’’ the tact ‘’Yukti’’ was left undefined. The fact remains that ‘Yukti’’ is largely missing, hence belies definition. ‘’Shakti’’ corresponds to masculine militaristic approach, which remains operative and hardly needs elaboration, ground fact speak loud and clear. ‘’Shakti’’ was needed, because trouble-makers, "only understand the language of power" so said Bhagwat. Trouble-makers could form a part of any society and laws are rightly framed to take care of them. In instance even the use of force could be justified. However, where there is an overwhelming mass of people harbouring a sentiment, the very definition of trouble-makers becomes questionable. And, in case the dominant sentiment does not find space for peaceful expression, it may translate into violent expression, however regrettable.

‘’Yukti’’ the tact may not remain in sync with ‘’Shakti’’ the power, if the power is used to crush the dominant sentiment, and make the masses yield to a narrative shaped by the powers that be. It could be particularly true, if the dominant narrative of the powers that be stands totally in contrast with the dominant sentiment of the masses. Yet, Bhagwat sees the need of "shakti" (power) and "yukti" (tact) to ensure that "truth prevails." Yet again, Bhagwat has failed to spell the truth, as he sees it. Moreover, the truth, as he may see it may not be in sync with truth as it is perceived by the overwhelming majority in JK State. And, while alluding to the state, it ought to mean erstwhile JK State across LoC, rather than a part of it.

In his discourse RSS chief called for using strength and tact to counter "forces seeking to divide the people" of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh and said trouble-makers only understood the language of power. The historical trail relates that rather than blame the so called ‘’trouble-makers’’ the shoe is in the other foot. As the communal cauldron gathered steam in the dying days of British Raj, elements of the populace in plain districts of Jammu were made to think differently, act differently too. It resulted in a holocaust with thousands killed, as borne by many witnesses. The horror is recorded in many recorded testimonies of the period. The divide was deepened to an extent where in the changing political mode of the post-colonial era, Jammu based Dogra autocracy was eulogized. The trail continues to this day. The autocracy that spelled miseries for overwhelming majority of people for more or less a century was given a democratic garb and made a factor in regional balance for decades to follow. The supposed balance however deepened the divide between the regions.

JK State might be the only state where the so called democratic order has certain regional forces asking for celebrating the birthday of the last named in the autocratic order with a public holiday. Incidentally Mahbooba Mufti unveiling the statue of the last Maharaja of the autocratic order in the newly inaugurated public park had to face a demonstration of some activists to remind her of declaring September, the 23rd a public holiday. This was orchestrated by two grandsons of the departed Maharaja in legislative council about a year back. Coincidentally, the date of unveiling the statue was March, the 16th 2018, exactly 172 years from the day Kashmir was sold to Gulab Singh—the founder of Dogra dynasty by East India company on March, the 16th 1846. Kashmiris to this day called the deed, ‘Bainama’ a sale deed that it indeed was.

Ladakh opting to be union territory was a sentiment fostered by vested interests in Leh district with the particular purpose of pitting Leh and plain districts of Jammu against the majority in the rest of the state. The perpetrators of the tripartite plan remain known widely, and it is futile to propagate that so called ‘’trouble-makers’’ seek to divide the state. The divisive forces in JK State are the same that sowed the seeds of division of the subcontinent, long time back by playing the cultural nationalistic card in the initial decades of 20th century. The ideology put the religion, culture and nationalism on the same pedestal. It left no provision for minority religious grouping to subscribe to same nationalistic trait as the majority. From Lala Lajpat Rai to Veer Savarkar, the idea was fostered that the minority is not in sync with the majority, being of different religious persuasion. The divide had been planed much before Mohammad Jinnah took it as a fait-accompli, and asked for what he thought inevitable-Pakistan.

In spite of cultural nationalism working up a divide by thrusting the majoritarian view on minorities Mohan Bhagwat emphasises that people of the Indian sub-continent belonged to one nation and had the same DNA. In affect, Bhagwat moves beyond subcontinental shores to region east of Kabul up to Kabul, west of Chindwin river (of Myanmar) slopes of Tibet on China side, and south of Sri Lanka, while emphasizing that they are one country. The hypothetical view of Bhagwat is hardly supported by facts on the ground. The one country, he talks of encompasses several countries with different nationalistic and cultural traits. Cultural nationalism has failed to substantiate the hypothetical view of Mohan Bhagwat and his ilk. In fact the danger looms large that it may add to the existent divide, unless divisive forces are reined in.