Political Narratives That Run Ahead of Reality

Jammu and Kashmir’s location, history, wars and the circumstances in which its politics evolved have made it one of the most politically sensitive regions in India. Its political journey, too, has been unlike that of most other parts of the country.

From the politics of accession and the early constitutional debates to the later movements for greater autonomy, self-rule and other political formulations, and eventually the politics surrounding Article 370 and the present demand for restoration of statehood, Jammu and Kashmir has travelled through several political phases. Yet the nagging uncomfortable question is: what has each phase ultimately delivered to the ordinary citizen?

Interestingly, every phase follows a familiar pattern. Political movements rise with enormous expectations. When slogans become louder and crowds on the streets begin to swell, political narratives acquire a life of their own. But when the dust settles, the commoner is often left asking what actually changed in his or her life.

A Fertile Ground for an Emotive Chord

Every election brings the narratives back. Political parties know that elections are not fought merely on government schemes, statistics or administrative performance. They are also fought on emotions, aspirations and perceptions. In Jammu and Kashmir, this becomes even more pronounced because the political question is deeply connected with the sense of identity and regional aspirations of the people.

This does not mean that people are foolish enough to believe every political promise. Nor does it mean that every aspiration emerging from Kashmir should be viewed with suspicion.

The aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir are real. Wanting greater political representation, protection of local interests, employment opportunities, land rights or restoration of constitutional arrangements is not, by itself, an act of disloyalty to the nation. India's Constitution has accommodated different arrangements for different parts of the country. Regional aspirations can therefore exist within the constitutional framework of India.

The problem begins when political parties convert legitimate aspirations into promises that they either cannot fulfil or have little control over fulfilling. Narratives are not just loosely hanging words; they create a connection or disconnect with the masses and thus acquire a momentum of their own.

When political leaders are unable to walk the talk, the gap between the promises and unmet aspirations turns narrative-building into something dangerous.

The recent electoral politics of Jammu and Kashmir offered a familiar example. Several political parties sought to establish themselves as the strongest voice against New Delhi. The narratives pivoted to restoration of rights, reclamation of power, and the need to confront the Centre.

Gap Between Promise and Governance

The political message was simple: we are the people who can stand up to Delhi. The rhetoric of an election campaign, however, eventually meets the arithmetic of governance.

A political narrative is like a horse that a rider can mount but cannot completely control. Before getting on, the rider may decide where he wants to go. Once the horse begins to run, it does so of its own volition and the rider is left to adapt to its movement, speed and the terrain ahead.

That is the problem with political narratives. They may win applause in the moment, but they also create expectations. Once created, they cannot simply be wished away after the election.

This is perhaps where Jammu and Kashmir's politics needs a fundamental change.

The objective should not be to permanently create a political confrontation between Srinagar and New Delhi. The objective should be to build trust between the people of Jammu and Kashmir and the rest of the country, and equally, trust between Jammu and Kashmir and the Union Government.

The political leadership of Jammu and Kashmir needs to communicate something very clearly: political disagreement with the Union Government is a democratic right, but disagreement does not have to become confrontation with the Indian Union.

Trust Can’t be a One-way Road

There is no contradiction between having strong regional aspirations and accepting India's federal constitutional structure. Similarly, there should be no need for political parties to repeatedly prove their nationalism by competing with each other in rhetoric. Their commitment to the Constitution, democracy, peace and the national interest should be beyond political theatre.

But trust cannot be a one-way road. If Jammu and Kashmir is expected to move beyond confrontation, New Delhi must also recognise that governance cannot permanently be based on suspicion.

The ordinary people of Kashmir did not create the conflict that engulfed their lives for decades. They lived through it. They lost family members, opportunities, businesses, education and, in many cases, the simple possibility of living a normal life.

For years, separatist politics and militancy existed alongside the ordinary lives of people who simply wanted to study, work, run businesses, raise families and live peacefully. The existence of those forces should not automatically be confused with the aspirations of the ordinary Kashmiri.

The post-2019 period has demonstrated something important. When the space for violent and separatist mobilisation was substantially curtailed, the ordinary citizen did not necessarily respond by taking to the streets in opposition to the Union. That deserves to be understood politically.

The overwhelming desire of an ordinary Kashmiri is no different from that of a person in Delhi, Maharashtra or Kanyakumari. They all need the same things: security, dignity, employment, education, development and a peaceful future for their children.

That is why the next chapter cannot simply be about control. It has to be about building confidence.

The Union Government has pursued a particular political and constitutional course in Jammu and Kashmir, culminating in the changes of 2019 and the subsequent restructuring of the former State.

The Supreme Court, in its 2023 judgment on Article 370, upheld the constitutional validity of the abrogation while also directing that elections to the Legislative Assembly be held and that statehood be restored at the earliest.

That constitutional chapter cannot be viewed merely as the conclusion of a long political contest. It should also be seen as the beginning of a different relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and New Delhi.

How to Build Bridges

The time has come to move from proving who defeated whom to asking what can now be built. If political parties in Jammu and Kashmir continue to promise the impossible simply because it sounds politically attractive, they will eventually find themselves trapped by their own narratives. And, if New Delhi continues to treat every political demand through the lens of confrontation, it risks missing the distinction between a legitimate democratic aspiration and an anti-national agenda.

Both sides have something to learn. Jammu and Kashmir's political leadership must learn to distinguish between aspiration and rhetoric. New Delhi must distinguish between dissent and disloyalty. Both need to build bridges and trust.

The people of Jammu and Kashmir deserve neither exaggerated promises nor permanent suspicion. They deserve politics that tells them the truth. Decades of confrontation have consumed generations. The period of political narratives has created expectations. The next period should be about delivery, reconciliation and confidence.