Of Spin-doctors, Machiavellians and Kashmir

By

Z. G. Muhammad

Spin-doctors have a field day in Kashmir. Summer 2013, belongs to them. The phrase, first used by New York Times in its editorial is now part of   global political jargon.  According to New York Times columnist, William Safari ‘spin’ is ‘deliberate shading of news perception.’ Moreover, for decades the spin-doctors have been playing the role of ‘putting slants on information when it is presented to public or in press.’

The spin-doctors have been there through out history, as someone has rightly said the first spin-doctor was the Serpent in the Bible for convincing Adam and Eve that Apples were next big thing. In modern political lexicon, they are called PR pundits but their role in many situations is to put an ‘optimistic face’ in worsening situation. The spin-doctors coin euphemisms, as we know the Bush administration ‘under the rubric of national security created many of them’ as American scholar Elena Mihas puts it, ‘war on terror’ became a pervasive euphemism on militant Islam. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was called liberation’.  Occupations of countries were named as ‘change of regime’.  To deny human rights as guaranteed under international law, the prisoners of war   continue to be called as ‘unlawful combatant’ or ‘enemy combatants’.  Looking back in 1947, we have also seen coinage of euphemism  by  the National Conference. General Secretary of the party Molvi Mohammad Syed Masoodi  called the air sorties carrying Indian soldiers as   e ‘tayraan ababil’ – the word from the Holy Quran referring to an important event in the history of Islam. Sheikh Abdullah played upon this word to justify his support for landing of troops in Kashmir on 27 October 1947.

In our situation, during peace times when there is ample political space, the role of spin-doctors becomes more significant.   They do not just include professional consultants, PR pundits but   ‘academia-NGO’, “professors”, ‘media-men’, former bureaucrats and politicians. Like Siberian, cranes that visit Kashmir wetlands during winters many of these spin-doctors in good numbers make it to Srinagar during summers. Arriving here with full orchestra not only to influence public perceptions on common issues but with their gunny bags of euphemisms, like ‘healing touch’. ‘deeper-alienation’, ‘zero tolerance’, ‘within confines of humanity’, ‘federal models of shared sovereignty’ and ‘political engagement’ they work to change the ‘fundamental political narrative’ of the land. Living to the reputation of propagandists some of these spin-doctors work overtime in  twisting and contorting  the historical realties   to  create    ‘confusion’ in public mind in general and youth in particular.  Many “NGO-academia’ with students as their ‘target audiences’ operate from the campuses. Some of them with cooperation of university administrations and teachers have been able to get a foothold on the campuses.

Not only some ‘politico-academia-NGO’s’   believe that they can defeat urges and aspirations of people  by  weaving cobwebs of  confusion around the legitimacy of the Kashmir movement   but even some old guards within the Congress subscribe to this belief. An old-time Congress party leader, Makhan Lal Fotedar  now settled in New Delhi for over last fifty years has been making to headlines for past few days by distorting and contorting history with a design to create confusion.  On June 18, in statement that made a banner lead, he termed the Indira-Abdullah agreement of 1975 as an attestation of Jammu and Kashmir’s “ultimate accession with Union of India.”On June 21, in exclusive interview with this newspaper he made only one points worth noting   that the statement made by former Union Home Minister, P. Chidambaram that Kashmir was a “unique problem and it needed a unique solution” and appointment of interlocutors GOI in the wake 2010 agitation   was a just  “damage controlling exercise.”  The former Congress Minister has very subtly suggested that GOI has no regard for blood of Kashmiris. And with his statement meant for dampening the morale of the people   he further discredited  the GOI  in the eyes of common people in Kashmir.

The Indira- Abdullah Accord, that was an agreement between an individual and Prime Minister of India for facilitating change of guard in the state has gone into the footnotes of Kashmir history. Here the point of debate is not how and why this agreement was executed and if it was comparable to Jawaharlal Nehru  appointing Abdullah as Emergency Administrator in 1947 for consolidating foothold of Indian army in Kashmir. If the Abdullah agreement of 1975 was, attestation of Jammu and Kashmir’s “ultimate accession with Union of India” is the poser.   The statement made by the Congress leader who called shots during Indira Gandhi regime throws up a big question. If in the eyes of Congress leadership, the   “accession of Jammu and Kashmir” on 25 February 1975 continued to be “temporary”, thus calling for an attestation by an individual or a political party. Looking at it other way round the Congress leaders believed that the ratification of “accession” by the State Constituent Assembly in 1957 was not legal        without attestation by Sheikh Abdullah.

To understand, how the Indira- Abdullah agreement was of no consequence with regard to final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir there is need for revisiting the history.  On January 31, October 1947, Nehru in a letter to Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liquate Ali Khan assured that Kashmir Accession was accepted on condition that once law and order was restored in Jammu and Kashmir a referendum will be held to enable the people to decide which of the two dominions- India or Pakistan they want to join.  In November 2, broadcast from All India  Radio Nehru repeated the commitment. In the White Paper published by GOI, on Indian States in 1950, after the Constitution of India had come in to force, the accession of J &K was described as temporary subject to a referendum. Eleven days after arrest of Sheikh Abdullah, India and Pakistan Prime Minister met. On 20 August 1953, Jawaharlal Nehru in a joint communiqué with Prime Minister of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Bogra agreed for fair and impartial plebiscite in Kashmir.

Jawaharlal Nehru, for four years continued with his policy of one-step forward and two-step backward policy on Kashmir for four years. In 1956,   backtracking  from his international agreement on holding a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir, he asked the State Constituent Assembly to ratify the “temporary” accession. In 1957 when the State Constituent Assembly, in a dithering mood that is evident from Syed Mir Qasim’s speech of 25 January 1957, ratified the accession, the United Nations Security Council in its resolution No 122(1957) dated 24 January 1957, out rightly rejected the action of the State Constituent Assembly. It also reaffirmed its earlier resolutions   the final disposition of the State will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.

If the action of the State Constituent Assembly could not affect the disputed status of Jammu and Kashmir in the eyes of international community, it is naïve to say Indira-Abdullah has put   a final seal on accession. These are just Machiavellian tactics to confuse people, discourage them and defeat their political aspirations.

Published in Greater Kashmir on 24-6-2013