Dog whistle on Kashmir masquerading as patriotic roar

For decades, abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution which bestowed Special Status to Jammu & Kashmir, was seen as little but a clarion call for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its affiliates within the Sangh Parivar. Along with a proclaimed commitment to building a Ram temple in Ayodhya and enacting the Uniform Civil Code, 'complete integration' of J&K formed the troika of contentious issues which could become a reality only after the Hindutva version of Ram Rajya – meaning the party was on the verge of securing a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament – was on the anvil. Till that time, the three slogans were to remain little more than political posters or drum beats to assemble supporters around ideas aimed at 'sorting out', or 'teaching' socio-political homilies, to the 'other'.

By staging a constitutional coup as part of a political manoeuvre whose impudence matches demonetisation of high value currency notes, the BJP government has demonstrated that dog-whistle politics remains indispensable to it for retaining political hegemony. Just as this year's Lok Sabha campaign proved, the BJP remains dependent on such politics for its political stranglehold on the nation and not because it delivered a string of utopian promises beginning with the now rarely mentioned, ‘Achhe Din’, or good tidings.

The highly-questionable and legally disputable dismemberment of J&K has been greeted with jubilation across the country. The response of several regional Opposition parties who post-haste lined up to applaud the audacity of Modi and Shah demonstrates that few have the political courage to question the spirit of the BJP's majoritarian politics. Ironically many of them of them routinely clamour for Special Status for states where they are politically rooted.

Already there is agreement that if people were asked once more to line up before EVMs and vote once again, the BJP tally is highly likely to overtake the record set by Rajiv Gandhi in 1984 – the Congress ended up with a score in excess of 400 despite elections not being held in Assam and Punjab along with the rest of India. Raising fear of the 'other' certainly helps. Rajiv Gandhi secured those numbers by dwelling on the prospect of the borders moving to people's doorsteps. The BJP does it by saying that the time has come when the dominant group must have its say because they care the most for the nation. Unable to build a counter-narrative, Opposition parties must either swim along or risk further marginalisation and desertion from within their ranks.

The government's decision – significantly not to be forgotten that it was taken without consultation with the people whose futures would be shaped by it - also demonstrates what was believed for long: The BJP's Kashmir policies did not have betterment of the troubled region and the resolution of conflict as its principal focus. Instead, its politics in 'Muslim' Kashmir is practised with an eye on securing its political constituency in 'Hindu' Jammu and beyond in other states of the Republic. It was said that Modi began his campaign for the 2019 elections the day after the dust settled on the 2014 victory. Likewise, make no mistake, the prime minister has already greatly ratcheted up his political narrative for 2024 and beyond.

Worryingly, this indicates that the Modi-Shah combine realise that the economy, already on the downswing, is not going to revive significantly. As a result, people have to be fed a false storyline where necessities and aspirations are to put on the backburner in favour of a bigger 'national project' or cause. It is not just coincidence. Instead, it must be seen as part of a political design that Kashmir's geo-political reconfiguration and recasting of the relationship of its people with the Indian Union was done exactly a week after passage of the Triple Talaq Bill.

Of the three contentious pursuits of the Sangh Parivar, abrogation of Article 370 appeared the most unlikely in the immediate context because of international implications, repercussion along the western border, as well as its impact on internal security. That the government chose the least democratic and non-consultative path makes it evident that it was dictated by urgency as well as cold political calculation. The exigency to 'settle' the matter and complete Kashmir's 'integration' could have been hastened by US President Donald Trump's claim that Modi requested him to mediate with Pakistan.

On the other hand, the political assessment may have been that after success in securing Parliamentary approval for the Hindutva push on Triple Talaq, restrictive amendments in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Right to Information Act, this was the most 'opportune' time to give a massive shove to the party's core agenda. The BJP would also have comprehended that the extent of support for its version of hyper-nationalism was such that most opposition parties would find it tough not to back the government’s move. The BJP leadership would have estimated that it would become doubly easy for the party to portray those opposing the Kashmir move as being against national interest and, as its script goes, in league with enemies of the nation, including terrorists and inimical forces from across the border.

Although the Centre's move is being legally challenged – there is also the precedence of –the Supreme Court stating in 2017 that "despite the head note of Article 370, it is not a temporary provision" – the move carries the stamp of finality in the present. This raises fears over what the future portends and poses the question if the move would lead to 'integration' of Kashmir or would this spark 'disintegration' in other troubled regions and among different sections of people.

This move of the Centre does not seek to embrace Kashmir and its people. Instead, the rest of India has been made partners in its stifling and the relative disenfranchisement of the people there. This move was made after Kashmiri representatives, cutting across parties, ideologies and degree of loyalty – or disloyalty – to the Union were virtually blinded and strangulated. The government is confident of preventing an outbreak of violence by use of force, already deployed in ample measure in J&K. Time will also determine if India is able to overcome potential cross-border fermentation and possible international isolation.

Whether it is successful or not in these endeavours will for the moment remain in the domains of internal security, defence and diplomacy. On the political front, once the shock and awe tactics of the BJP fades and political parties, who have no future save their own demise in cozying up with the BJP, wake up to the enormity of the Modi regime's move, they will have to worry over other unilateral steps that are being possibly contemplated. Self-restraint is never a trait of any authoritarian leader.

(Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay is a Delhi-based writer and author. His latest book is RSS: Icons Of The Indian Right. He has also written Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times (2013))

(The views expressed above are the author’s own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH)