Congress may be repeating BJP's error of 2003

The year 2008 has withered away. Shall the Congress party follow suit?

The year has ended with two sets of elections, full-fledged assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir and a set of eight by-elections in Karnataka. Neither should give the Congress any cheer.

This may seem a harsh judgment, particularly so in Jammu & Kashmir where the Congress has returned to power as part of a coalition. The minor difference is that the Congress is now in bed with the Abdullah clan's National Conference rather than the Muftis' fiefdom of the People's Democratic Party.

The major difference is that the Congress has three fewer seats and is down by about 6 per cent in terms of actual vote-share. (Its current partner, the National Conference, lost almost 8 per cent in terms of votes but retained its old strength of 28 seats.)

The truth is that the only parties to have gained from the Jammu & Kashmir assembly election are the BJP and the People's Democratic Party, the former increasing its tally by 10 seats and the latter by as many as five. Between them, these two now have 32 MLAs in the assembly, a significant figure in a House with a total strength of just 87. In other words, the stage is all set for trouble in Jammu & Kashmir.

The People's Democratic Party used 'soft secessionism' as its plank during the polls. This has been the bane of the state, the theory that Jammu & Kashmir is somehow different from the rest of India, something that was at the root of Jawaharlal Nehru's Kashmir policy. Yet at no point did either Pandit Nehru or any of his camp ever condescend to explain how and why the state is 'unique.'

Truth be told, I would agree to an extent -- but only because every Indian state is unique. Kerala is not Tamil Nadu and Karnataka is unlike Andhra Pradesh even if plenty of North Indians club them all together as 'Madrasis.' But when was the last time that you heard any serious politicians from these states speculate about 'autonomy,' or 'separate currency,' or even a 'separate Constitution for our state?'

This is exactly the level of discussion fostered by sixty years of Nehruvian policy, where it is acceptable -- even fashionable -- in Kashmir to speak of 'Kashmiris' and 'Indians' as distinct people.

The truth is that Jammu & Kashmir is 'unique' only in having a Muslim majority, a fact that you are not supposed to mention in 'secular' circles. If anything, I believe the secessionist leaders are more honest than the 'secular' hypocrites elsewhere.

Here is what Syed Ali Shah Geelani, head of the Hurriyat Conference, said back in August 2008. His aim, he said, was 'to impose an Islamic nizam in Kashmir. Islam should govern our lives, be it in our political thought, socioeconomic plans, culture, or the ongoing movement.'

He helpfully added that 'the creed of socialism and secularism should not touch our lives.' And for good measure, 'The question of imposing an Islamic rule is different. Why do people object to it? If America and India can have democratic rule, others can have Communism, why object to Islamic rule?'

Appalling to say, almost everyone in the media ignored this vile rubbish, choosing to berate the people of Jammu instead during the Amarnath controversy. Syed Ali Shah Geelani actually openly admitted in the same interview that the 'transfer of land is not the core issue for us;' the secularists in Delhi could not bring themselves to be equally honest.

In a nutshell, the roots of secessionism do not lie in some imaginary 'Kashmiriyat', this is the same uncompromising philosophy espoused by the Muslim League before 1947. And if anyone is asinine enough to believe that a National Conference-Congress coalition can douse these fires, well, think again.

The National Conference came to power in Jammu & Kashmir in 1987 and then again in 1996. Both occasions only served to strengthen the secessionist forces, and that could happen again if history is a guide.

The People's Democratic Party was prepared to float ideas like 'dual currency' to attract votes. The party may not have won power but you cannot ignore the fact that it increased its tally of seats and votes alike, cutting the ground under the National Conference in its former strongholds in southern Kashmir. Out of power, the People's Democratic Party will feel ever bolder in raising such demands.

The difference between the situation today and those of 1987 and 2002 is that the people of Jammu are now almost as upset as those in Kashmir. Anger at the Congress's perceived pampering of Kashmiri secessionism led to voters turning to the sole alternative, the BJP, in Jammu. That could happen elsewhere too.