B L Saraf
Dr Jitendra Singh, MOS in PM’s Office, has reiterated his Government’s resolve to ensure Pandits dignified and honorable return to the home. Indeed, heartwarming words. ‘Dignified return to the designated colonies ‘ are the words uttered, ad- nauseam, in the past, with so hollowness of the purpose that they have become a cliché. Thanks to the flip- flops of various stake holders, the terminology has generated a sectarian debate in the Valley, wherein the word ‘Colony’ stands demonized. Motivated interpretations are employed to thwart the return of an exile. From nowhere, convoluted ideas are floated that Israeli Mossad is on way to Kashmir, via Pandit settlements. For some, who till yesterday were in the seat of power and vouched for such colonies a threat to the “demographic character of Kashmir “looms large.
Opponents of the return apportion blame on the displaced community by raising questions “Are Pandits really interested in the return, especially when their youth is well placed elsewhere? To be honest, some exiles do look vacillating on the prospect. Implicit in explanation to the formulation is regard for the person’s Right and respect for his Choice.
Let us examine merit of the query and try to answer it on its terms. Amartya Sen may, though, lend conviction to it. In his the Idea Of Justice -p 229 – 23. He asks “Whether “Process of Choice ” should be given some thought.” Analyzing the issue, Pandit return may have a perspective. Important attribute of democracy, according to Sen, is that it helps us in our ability to decide to live as we would like and promote the ends we may want to advance. We may, for example, want to make sure that we are not being forced into some state because of constraints imposed by others.” He explains the matter with the help of an illustration which may find traction with the Pandit’s cause. Sen talks of Kim, who, in scenario ‘A’ decides one Sunday to stay home than go out and does the same. In, what Sen calls, scenario ‘C’ the thugs restraint Kim by commanding that he must not go out of his house, with the threat of severe punishment if he violates this restriction.
True, some young Pandits are gainfully employed outside, who in absence of decent earning avenues here may not like to return. Well, it could be said of many young KMS who too, are placed likewise and won’t prefer to come back for the same reason. But unlike KP youth they retain a choice to visit their home in the Valley as an occasion arises and fly back to their working destinations.
Well, many leave home to earn livelihood. One must therefore understand that physical living at home is not that important as it is to have a sense of home. Pain of an anchorage always lingers in exile. Speaking in plain terms a right to live at a place correspondingly, entails a right not to live there. Assuming, some KPs don’t feel like living in the Valley, presently, it has to be their choice and, by no means, should mean foreclosure of their return option. Pandits should be enabled to rekindle the sense of belonging. A right of ingress and egress is to be made available to the displaced – not necessarily dependent on their fixed presence in the Valley – as it is available to the non- resident KMs who work elsewhere in the globe. After all they too don’t intend to live permanently in Kashmir. Why this discrimination? This requires to be understood both by the’ oscillating ‘KPs and the ‘ doubting ‘ KMs.
Pandits are away from home-not by choice but by compulsion of the circumstances. In worst case situation, if the proposition that they do not intend to come back is upheld then analogically, spirit of the scenario ‘A’ of the illustration has to be the benchmark; and not the scenario ‘B’. Kim remained home on that Sunday in both the scenarios, yet in scenario “A” he retained choice to move out. That choice must be restored to the KPs.
No doubt, physical presence in the Valley is strong indication of Pandit’s right to be there. But the right can’t be assessed solely on this score. That will be superficial understanding of the issue. Pandits do have a commitment to the home with a sense to remain anchored to the moorings albeit constructively. To them it weighs heavily than a mere physical presence. In the given situation, their fixed presence in Kashmir may not be a culmination of the desire. After all one cannot remain glued physically to the home all the time. Restoration of choice matters most. Let us dread the day when sense of home and anchorage dies in our heart.
Amartya Sen’s words are helpful ”We must examine whether a person’s capability to lead the kind of life she values should be assessed only by the culmination alternative that she would actually end up with or by using a broader approach that takes note of process of choice involved, in particular the other alternatives that she could also choose, within her actual ability to do so.”
When the, resisting elements in the Valley will ” take note of choice involved ” in the return of an exile and the circumstances that forced him out are terminated, options will automatically open up for him to look for a best spot in the Valley, suitable for his – real not clichéd – ‘ safe and dignified’ living in the suitable environs accompanied with the sense of permanence of a home. The polemical debate over establishment of colonies, in that situation, will become spurious.
Kashmir civil society’s role as a facilitator is cut out. We trust that they like other saner elements in the Valley will admit that the parallel drawn between settling Pandits in the Valley and Israeli settlements in Palestine is farfetched and distasteful one.
(The author is former Principal District & Sessions Judge)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel