An unprecedented way to lead through “Cooperation, not coercion” amassed a vast majority, for the BJP led government, in the general elections of 2014. Outcomes were alike in the 2019 general elections. Nevertheless, the recent government action seems to despise strict compliance. Abrogation of article 370 snatched “special privileges” from J&K. In a stern effort to weed-out “terrorism and separatism,” government downgrades the pride and paradise of India’s crown–-Jammu and Kashmir.
The decision was a hasty one because, in policy-making, pragmatism and idealism stand wide apart, whereas, a pragmatic policy emphasizes the realistic means. Both means and ends must be recognised while making decisions, because the cost associated may at times outweigh the benefits. Is the government pragmatic in making this historic change?
Modi proclaimed “Changes in Kashmir will free it from terrorism.” The move seems more like an idealist measure. This measure is debased on the grounds of the fallacy of the maturity of chances. The statement is yet another “Modi’s blandishment” as the measure has a tinge of edifying dullness. The means demand constructive obedience.
The perception to undo a constitutional error or provide an effective remedy to a “constructive anachronism” in itself is erroneous. The clandestine passage of the order marked one of the biggest ordeals of J&K – instability in the short run. None of the assiduous leaders sought public opinion on a matter influencing them the most. Therefore, in such a hasty decision, the ill-effects are numerous.
India, as a federal republic, denuded J&K of autonomy although it focused on decentralization of power since inception. In a drive to obliterate militancy, they have restricted individual rights. Internet and network services have been suspended. More than 500 Kashmiri’s have been arrested. This baleful act might cost the economy as it impedes the tourism sector. In other words, it restricts peace and freedom for a few months. Driven by trepidation, intransigency might be the cost even if government roots-out militancy. Separatism might grow and further intensify instability.
Centralization is not an issue; perhaps, prosperity demands a degree of centralization. However, in a drive to seek development, leaders shouldn’t forget that “all that glitters is not gold”. A completely centralized government may jeopardize secularism or federal status of the economy. The Cuban economy is one such economy, wherein through an idealist cycle of growth, the economy promulgated inequality, poverty and instability.
The decision is not vile. Ladakh and J&K required a different mandate because of differences in political structure and environment. However, a hasty action makes it seem malicious – an urge to change the demographic balance of a state with 77.1 per cent Muslims by allowing migration and private investment. It cuts the possibility of peaceful action. The means are not inclined to achieve the end. Therefore, a haste decision, like this one, is less pragmatic but more idealistic. The costs accrued are astronomical. Plus, the opprobrium heaped stigmatizes India to an anarchical form of federalism. Perhaps, a pluralistic approach would have not rendered the J&K economy in jeopardy because what we see now is an outlying feather of a bird.
-Truth
Destiny with Truth 