Vijay Hashia
Political pundits were caught unawares by the electoral verdict in J&K and the present political stalemate. More than six days have elapsed since election results are out, the two major stake holders have failed to sew up an alliance. The failure to negotiate an alliance and to form a stable government can be explained as bad tactics and lack of political will.
There is no getting away from the fact that the National Conference and Indian National Congress were in power for much of the time in the history of J&K and this time they have not been able to retain their majority. If they had, the current debate wouldn’t arise. They have, thus, clearly lost the election. Losing the popular mandate to rule can have no other meaning. Once the ruling entities have bitten the dust, the logic of democracy dictates that their opponents who have majority be asked to try their hand of governance that may be stable. Only if they report failure, can other options be explored in order to avoid the pain and expense of a fresh poll or a governor’s rule.
Yes, the differences are issue based between the two major stake holders which have provoked a flurry of partisan commentary. The Kashmir politics is made more divisive by digging into residues of the past without foresight. Polarization has augured ill for the health of democracy in general. In terms of ideology and history which the parties claim, it is unnatural and unethical for parties to ally separatists’ dictates for hard bargains. AFSPA is a national security issue and cannot be bargained for alliance. Likewise, Art-370 is a political issue to be dealt cautiously by looking at its pros and cons; it should not stand a hitch for a stable alliance. Ideology that stands on prejudice and parochial principles cannot be trusted to be based on nationalistic agenda. No ideology must stand a barrier to frame a stable alliance for developmental agenda and true nationalism.
In the last 67 years of our independence, the country Britain, on which we model our parliamentary system, no minority coalition has been given the first crack at government. And in this country, so far, there has not been an occasion when an alliance unable to cross the halfway mark in an election has laid first claim to form the government or has been invited, on careful consideration, to do so by the President or a Governor. It would be a sorry state of affairs calling the minority amalgam instead of majority to form the government.
In 2002, the vacuum was filled eventually by the Congress-PDP coalition, a loose pre-poll alliance; though this took quite some time to materialize as these parties vied long for the chief minister’s post. In this period of suspense, the governor waited patiently. If Abdullah had been given the chance, he would have succeeded in knocking together a coalition though this would have been distasteful to the people of the state in the political climate of the day and a thorough disregard of the popular mandate. The people of J&K would have indeed been entitled to wonder why the election had been held. It is to the credit of the governor, Girish Saxena that he avoided the temptation of governor’s rule either which, under the J&K constitution, is perhaps easier to promulgate, or organize than is President’s rule in other state of the Union.
The notion that a coalition can be the first to be brought to take the oath, if only it were to occupy the largest block, first came to notice before the result of the Lok Sabha election in May 2004 became known. The NDA were quite vociferous about it. This was indeed a sad day for democratic debate as politicians were guided by pure expediency, not by the spirit of democracy. Mercifully, the proposition never fructified or need to be tested in the courts as the NDA’s opponents outnumbered it quite cleanly.
The present position of J&K is that no single party has absolute majority and the combination of BJP and PDP both having largest mandate, is unable to come together to frame the government. The problem with the two majority stake holders is ideological differences; the former armed with nationalistic and modern agenda for development of the state and later with orthodox and unrealistic ideology dealing in a manner as political barter system inconsistent with democratic norms. The current situation points to a deadlock but that could change as a result of political decision parties might conceivably take without hard bargains and obsolete ideologies. The deadlock can change if people’s verdict and interest of both the regions is considered at par by the politicians. The natural politics will then survive and the assembly proceedings would then not be obstreperous.
Follow our WhatsApp channel