After Egyptian revolution, Mehbooba wants Tamil Nadu, West Bengal impact in J&K

‘Old fossils have outlived their utility. New parties (like PDP) should rule now on’

Ahmed Ali Fayyaz

SRINAGAR, May 23: Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) President, Mehbooba Mufti, did not stress on gender but asserted in unambiguous terms, at a meeting of her party workers in Jammu yesterday, that Jammu and Kashmir was “ripe for a change---like Tamil Nadu and West Bengal”. Clearly, she wants the people of Jammu and Kashmir to overthrow the “old fossils”---National Conference and Congress---and transfer the power to the “young parties” like PDP. Earlier this year, she hogged headlines when she was exuberantly swayed by the Egyptian revolution and wished Lal Chowk to transform into Cairo’s

Tehrir Square

.

““Parties like the National Conference, established by grandfathers and dominated by sons and grandsons, have outlived their utility and relevance and have been dumped by the people in states like West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and earlier in Bihar and UP,” she is quoted by KNS to have said. By her argument, or wish, by the way, Rahul Gandhi should dump the centurion Congress in Yamuna.

Yearning for change is but natural in human beings. Who doesn’t want “change” in Jammu and Kashmir? Sheikh Abdullah wanted it 80 years ago and got it in 1947. He continued to pursue the “change” until 1977. Others, like Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, too wanted a “change”. They wanted to function as rulers and thought the Sheikh fit for the role of opposition.

Even when everybody, with the exception of Mahaz-e-Azadi founder Sofi Mohammad Akbar and the jailed JKLF founder Maqbool Bhat, stood “accommodated” during Sheikh’s regime, a youthful Sheikh Tajamul Islam called for a change “on the pattern of the Iranian Revolution (of 11^th February 1979). Sometime later, he found an accompanist in Dr Ayoub Thakur. Qualifying for expulsion as a teacher at University of Kashmir, Thakur emotionally escorted a visiting Iranian clergyman from Srinagar to Budgam to Mirwaiz Farooq’s Jamia Masjid.

Gul Shah too wanted the change. The man who never contested elections wanted a “real democratic government” in place. He created one with the support of Mufti. Then Rajiv Gandhi wanted the “change”. He announced to transform Kashmir with Rs 1,000 Cr central economic package and wanted Karakul ram farming as its key feature. To make the “change” complete, he even roped in Mirwaiz Farooq. The hands-joining picture of Rajiv Gandhi, Farooq Abdullah and Mirwaiz Farooq, waving to a huge congregation at Iqbal Park, on the cover of India Today, is still in the Valley’s political archives.

Three years later, everybody was on the streets with the slogan of a change, a revolution. In just six years, Kashmiris wanted another “change”---this time restoration of pre-1990 halcyon days.

Among all dramatis personae, who didn’t get the “change”? Sheikh got it in 1947 and 1975. Mufti got it all through the decade of 1960s, missed it in 1976 but got it back in 1984 and years later in 2002. Mirwaiz laid his hands on the shreds of a change in 1987. Everybody from Yasin Malik to Syed Ali Shah Geelani enjoyed the honey of a change through 1990s. Farooq Abdullah regained it in 1996. Son, Omar Abdullah, wanted a “greater change”---everybody out from Farooq to Mufti to Soz to Azad to Hurriyat---and got it in 2009.

Sheikh Abdullah often referred to Kamal Ataturk and wanted a Turkish form of liberal Islam in Kashmir---something that impressed Gen Pervez Musharraf decades later. His successor son Farooq exposed Sheikh’s entire Cabinet to public humiliation in days of his taking over in September 1982 at Iqbal Park rally. He selected a fresh team, even before seeking mandate in June 1983. Communists wanted a revolution like in China, Russia, Cuba and Vietnam. Tajamul and Thakur wanted an Iranian-type revolution. Taking lead over clergymen, Mehbooba called for an Egyptian-type revolution. She has now compromised to the level of Tamil Nadu and West Bengal.

Mehbooba’s discomfort (of being in opposition) is understandable as most of India’s “revolutionary” women---Sheila Dixit, Mayawati, Mamta Banerjee, J Jayalalithaa---have realized their dream of being the Chief Minister. But, she must realize that she is better placed than the more “revolutionary” Uma Bharti and retaining the privilege of being in J&K what Sushma Swaraj is at the national level.

The change Mehbooba wants would perhaps never come from Egypt, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. It has to generate within and she has a whole empty field to make her presence felt. What she views as “change” is simply a continuity for an ordinary state subject.

The Abdullahs and the Muftis have indeed changed. So have our own Hurriyat leaders. With exceptions like Fazal Haq Qureishi, they have all enjoyed the best of life while promising “change” to the poor Kashmiri. Corruption, nepotism, favouritism, lack of accountability, unemployment and red-tapism have been a nation-wide or perhaps Asia-wide phenomena. A gradual change has been visible all through the country but everything has remained unchanged from Lakhanpur to Uri and Nobra. Aren’t all of our politicians part of the “deadwood” she is cursing in Jammu?

END