Pratap Bhanu Mehta on Kashmir

Pratap Bhanu Mehta has an article portentously titled 'The story of Indian democracy written in blood and betrayal' in the Indian Express. 

Reading between the lines, we can form an idea of what Mehta used, in place of ink, to write this piece. The question is, how did he procure it? Careful reading of the article can throw light on how it is Mehta comes to use his own shit to write his bombastic screeds.

There are times in the history of a republic when it reduces itself to jackboot.

Nonsense! The jackboot is associated with Germany. The Weimar Republic's history does not feature any jackboots. Why? It was the successor state to the German Empire and was followed by Hitler's Third Reich. America is a Republic. Its history has never been reduced to a jackboot. Mehta is talking ignorant shite.

Nothing more and nothing less. We are witnessing that moment in Kashmir.

If so, what were we witnessing during Jagmohan's tenure as Governor of J&K? Did India turn into a police state under Rajiv Gandhi or V.P Singh? 

But this moment is also a dry run for the political desecration that may follow in the rest of India.

A rehearsal is not a performance. A 'dry run' has no practical impact. During 'war games', no actual soldiers are killed. If all that is happening in Kashmir Valley is some sort of theatrical rehearsal, why worry about it?

Notice Mehta does not say that 'political desecration' will follow in the rest of India. He says it may follow. Similarly, Mehta may say something sensible for once in his life, but we have good reason to doubt he will actually do so.

The manner in which the BJP government has changed the status of Jammu and Kashmir by rendering Article 370 ineffective and bifurcating the state is revealing its true character.

What has been revealed? That it keeps its campaign promises? That it is capable of cutting the Gordian knot and bringing about the sort of change poor people need? That it does things by the book and in a manner which is in consonance with the Constitution? 

This is a state for whom the only currency that matters is raw power.

So, Mehta is not just against a particular political party, he is against the Nation State of India! He says India wants nothing except 'raw power'. It is an evil, Fascist, country. Imran Khan is right. The World should unite to wipe this evil Nation State off the map!

This is a state that recognises no constraints of law, liberty and morality. This is a state that will make a mockery of democracy and deliberation. This is a state whose psychological principle is fear. This is a state that will make ordinary citizens cannon fodder for its warped nationalist pretensions.

Mehta says India is evil. It recognizes no constraints of law, liberty and morality. It is not a democracy. It is a country run on the basis of fear. India will make ordinary citizens cannon fodder for its warped nationalist pretensions- e.g. maintaining the territorial integrity of the country even though Imran Khan has clearly hinted that Pakistan should be given J&K.

I hope Imran Sahib takes note of Mehta and gives him some nice sinecure as a reward. Sadly, even the Pakistanis don't want Mehta because everybody knows he is a worthless tosser. 

What is Mehta's major malfunction? He doesn't see the elephant in the room. Kashmir Valley, like other parts of the world targeted by Islamic extremists, has a serious terrorism and insurgency problem. Funding from India to a corrupt political class finds its way to the bad guys. The police are cowed and intimidated. India needs to do what other countries do in the face of this sort of threat. Luckily, the problem is easily contained because Pakistan itself was killing off extremists who did not side with them.

The 'narrative' on Kashmir Valley reflects the wider, still unfolding story, of how Islamic extremists are being dealt with across the globe.

Mehta pretends otherwise. Pakistan did not have to conduct very extensive military operations in Swat Valley. America did not have to put boots on the ground in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia did not have to crack down on militants within its own borders. There is no such thing as extreme jihadist ideology. All that obtains is a very evil and Fascist Indian Nation State which is running amok.

The narrative supporting a radical move on Kashmir is familiar. Article 35(a) was a discriminatory provision and had to go. Article 370 was not a mechanism for integration but a legal tool for separatism. The Indian state, despite the horrendous violence it has used in the past, has never had the guts to take a strong stand on Kashmir.

India is not just evil, it is cowardly. It uses horrendous violence but doesn't have the guts to do something non-violent- i.e. take a strong stand on Kashmir. Why? I can take a strong stand on Kashmir and Palestine and the Uighurs and anything else. It doesn't cost me anything to do so. But the Indian State, prior to Modi, would get very frightened and its guts would start churning and it would have explosive diarrhea if it was asked to 'take a strong stand on Kashmir'. 

The radicalisation within Kashmir warrants a crackdown. The treatment meted to Kashmiri Pandits has never been recompensed either through justice or retribution. The international climate is propitious. We can do what China is doing: Remake whole cultures, societies. We can take advantage of the fact that human rights is not even a hypocrisy left in the international system. We can show Pakistan and Taliban their place. Let us do away with our old pusillanimity. Now is the time to seize the moment. Settle this once and for all, if necessary with brute force.

What is the alternative? Do nothing? Why not let Islamic State recruit students at Ashoka University to fight the jihad in Kashmir and Syria and London and Paris and Colombo? Surely that is the decent, democratic thing to do? The answer is no, that is the stupid thing to do. Only a fucking moron, like Mehta, would take such a path- if allowed to do so. 

There are kernels of truth to many of these arguments. The status quo was a double whammy: It did nothing to address the well-being of Kashmiris who have now endured two generations of what was effectively military occupation. And it increased the gulf between Kashmir and the rest of the nation. So some movement was inevitable. But the kernel of truth is being deployed with an armoury of evil.

Truth is truth, no matter who is deploying it. Mehta may say that India is evil and thus its armoury is evil. He is welcome to emigrate. However, he must stop pretending he cares about truth and thus resign from any sort of academic work.

The solution being proposed is an annihilation of decency.

But Mehta has already told us that the Indian State is evil and routinely unleashes 'horrendous violence'. Why speak of decency being annihilated? We say Hitler was monstrously evil. We don't say he lacked decency or wasn't quite a gentleman.

The fact that these measures had to be done under stealth, with a tight security noose and informational blackout is a measure of the evil of the step taken.

Nonsense! The aim was to cut off the trouble-makers from their pay-masters and to disrupt their networks. This plan succeeded because the 'mainstream' politicians were disintermediated.

This is not the dawn of a new constitutional settlement, designed to elicit free allegiance. It is repression, plain and simple, reminiscent of the Reichstag or Chinese constitutional ideology that sees federalism as an obstacle to a strong state and homogenous culture.

The Reichstag was the parliament of the Weimar Republic. It burned down and so Hitler's goons met somewhere else. Mehta probably meant to write 'reminiscent of the Third Reich'. China has no 'constitutional ideology'. It has a 'Party ideology'. On conquering the country, the Communist Party initially toyed with paying lip service to Stalin's theory of Nationalities which had also been a feature of KMT ideology. But it soon abandoned any such pretense.

India's case is quite different. It is a multi-party democracy under the Rule of Law. The framers of the Constitution chose a unitary not a federal model. As Dr. Ambedkar pointed out, it is the Union of India which decides what is or is not a State or Union or other type of Territory. Mehta knows very well that States have been partitioned or reconstituted by the Center regardless of what the majority in the State Legislative Assembly demands. This enables minorities to thrive on their own rather than be exploited. In the case of J&K, Ladakh has been separated in keeping with the desires of the majority of its population. The same has not been done for Jammu. It remains to be seen whether this is tenable.

Think of the proposal’s broader ramifications. India has betrayed its own constitutional promises.

The Indian constitution contains provisions for its own amendment. It does not make any promises whatsoever. It was drafted by smart people like Ambedkar, not cretins like Mehta. There is no question of 'betrayal' here. It could be argued that there was a betrayal of the Princes when Indira Gandhi snatched away their privy purses. But that was a political betrayal, not a betrayal of the Law. 

India has many asymmetric federalism arrangements outside of Kashmir.

India is not a Federation. It is a Union. There are no 'federal arrangements' in Indian Law. The Union of India- that is the Center- has the constitutional power, subject to due process, to change how any part of India is governed. This has always been the case.

This act potentially sets the precedent for invalidating all of them.

Either a thing sets a precedent or it does not. Anything can potentially affect anything else. Suppose my neighbor's cat, currently sleeping in the sun on the roof of a garden shed, suddenly wakes up and jumps down into the street. This could, potentially, give a shock to a little old lady walking on the pavement causing her to swerve onto the road. This could, potentially, cause the driver of an oncoming car to swerve and hit the lamp-post. This accident could potentially cause a super-strain of Ebola- which the driver was transporting- to be released into the air. This deadly virus could, potentially, spread across the world killing off everyone save Iyengars. Since Iyengars are very evil, they are bound to do something very nasty to the Indian Constitution. Thus, my neighbor's cat could potentially invalidate not just the Indian Constitution but also the Constitution of every other country.

How can we justify offering Nagaland asymmetric federalism but deny it to Kashmir?

We are not called upon to make any such justification. Suppose someone comes up to you and says 'You wipe your own bum. Yet you don't come to my house to wipe my bum. How do you justify your asymmetric bum wiping?' You tell the guy to fuck off. He calls up Pratap Bhanu Mehta who turns up at your door demanding to hear your justification. What do you do? Well you could punch him in the face- but then how would you get that nasty smell off your knuckles? Thus, you may say 'My bum-wiping is a self-regarding action. I gain by wiping my own bum. I don't gain by wiping anyone else's bum. Fuck off before I call the police.'

Its implication is that the government can unilaterally declare any existing state to be a Union Territory.

Quite true.

This is a constitutional first.

Nonsense!  The National Capital Territory of Delhi, Chandigarh and Lakshadweep were formed by separating each territory from pre-existing states. Mehta actually lives in Delhi. Why does he not know this?

We are simply a union of Union Territories that happen to be a state at the discretion of the Centre.

No. Article 1 of the Constitution says 'India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. The territory of India shall consist of: The territories of the states, The Union territories and Any territory that may be acquired.' It has been clarified that the Union of India alone decides what is a State or Union or other type of Territory. This is not a matter of discretion. It is not the case that the President can say 'I exercise my discretionary powers to declare that Tamil Nadu is no longer a State. It is a Union Territory.'

Let us also not put too fine a point on this.

Let us also put not too fine a point on things which, potentially, Mehta shoves up his arse.

Even if Article 370 were to be scrapped, the proposal to alter Jammu and Kashmir’s status to Union Territory, even if temporarily, is designed to humiliate an already subjugated population.

If J&K has a 'subjugated population', then Pakistan is right and India is in the wrong. However, if Hindu majority Jammu feels subjugated by Muslims and Buddhist and Hindu majority Ladakh feels subjugated by Muslims, why not let them go their own way? Mehta may feel that India should let the Muslim majority go to Pakistan but why can't they just walk there? There are plenty of non Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh who would gladly trade places with them. As for the Muslims of India- how did they benefit by having a Muslim majority State in the Union? 

How dare a Muslim dominated state exist in India? Kashmir can now not even be trusted to be a state. The optics of this measure is not integration, it is humiliation, of a piece with subtle and unsubtle reminders to minorities of their place in India.

J&K has been so frequently under President's Rule that it would be true to say that it could not be trusted to be a state. Mehta may believe that the Government of India does not care about National Security. Its raison d'etre is to humiliate people. That was certainly the impression most Indian formed when they had to interact with organs of the State. However, under Modi things have gotten better. I never expected to hear NRIs praise Indian Embassy staff or the Ministry of External Affairs. Yet, under the late Sushma Swaraj, this miracle actually occurred.

Let’s take the argument that this pain is worth the price, if it actually solves the problem. But will it?

Yes. Killing people who try to kill you solves the problem of murder.

There will be a sullen peace, militarily secured, that we will mistake for victory.

Nobody will mistake it for anything because nobody cares about this shithole with just half a percentage of the total population. Whether the Valley is sullen or smiling does not matter to anyone. 

The very army, behind whom every patriot now hides, will now potentially be put in even more harm’s way:

Potentially, my neighbor's cat could put all of humanity- except for them evil Iyengars- in harm's way.

To be used more and more as the sole basis for keeping India together.

This fuckwit does not get that China and Pakistan have territorial claims against border regions. Our Army is the sole factor keeping their Armies out of those areas. However the vast mass of the Indian population live far away from any such borders. They are not menaced in any way. Mehta may pretend that the only way to prevent Maharashtra or Bihar from breaking away is by sending in the Army but, potentially, this causes him to put too fine a point on stuff he shoves up his arse.

And even if we concede to the tragic necessity of force, that force can work only in the context of a larger political and institutional framework that inspires free allegiance, not fear.

Which is why Tibet and Kurdistan are free and independent countries.

But even if Kashmir resigns to its fate, pummelled by military might, the prospect of radicalisation in the rest of the country cannot be ruled out.

Because, potentially, my neighbor's cat may put too fine a point on stuff Mehta, for reasons that can't be ruled out, shoves up his arse.

There are already incipient signs of that. The theatre of political violence will shift. In the context of the communally sensitive arc from UP to Bengal and in Kerala, India will seem more fragile.

Yes. This is the Congress game-plan. 

For, fundamentally, what this change signals is that Indian democracy is failing.

Because it rejected the Dynasty and elected a 'chai-wallah'. 

It is descending into majoritarianism, the brute power of the vote; it will no longer have the safety valves that allowed inclusion.

Inclusion of cretins like Pratap Bhanu Mehta in 'National Knowledge Commissions' and other such boondoggle. 

The feckless abdication of the Opposition will only deepen the sense of alienation. There are no political avenues for protest left.

Because protest is a good in itself.

Most of the so-called federal parties turned out to be more cowardly than anyone anticipated; the Congress can never stand for any convictions. Not a single one of us can take any constitutional protections for granted. Parliament is a notice board, not a debating forum.

It is true that Indian politicians are less cretinous than Mehta, but then so is everybody else. However, Mehta is right to say he himself can't take constitutional protections for granted because, potentially, he may put too fine a point on some large object he, for reasons which can't be altogether ruled out, shoves up his stinky bum.

Let us see what the Supreme Court does, but if its recent track record is anything to go by, it will be more executive minded than the executive. Kashmir is not just about Kashmir: In the context of the UAPA, NRC, communalisation, Ayodhya, it is one more node in a pattern hurtling the Indian state towards a denouement where all of us feel unsafe.

Because Mehta may put too fine a point on stuff he shoves up his bum and thus this cretinous bag of shite might explode at any moment. Since, potentially, Mehta may be in your vicinity when this happens, you too should feel unsafe.

Not just Kashmiris, not just minorities, but anyone standing up for constitutional liberty.
The larger worry is the fabric of our culture that is making this possible. There is a propaganda machinery unleashed with the media that builds up a crescendo baying for blood and calls it nationalism.

As opposed to a propaganda machinery unleashed by clients of the Dynasty which insists that the Indian Nation State is evil and has always unleashed 'horrendous violence' and subjugated and humiliated minorities.

There is the coarsening of human sentiments that makes empathy look worse than violence.

Very true! If we empathize with this sad sack of shit putting too fine a point on something which he shoves up his arse, then the consequence is worse than the violence we would have had to employ to restrain the stupid cretin. Potentially speaking, of course.

There is the sheer political impatience with any alternative. The old Congress system of dealing with these issues appears so decrepit and corrupt that even a total carpet bombing of institutions and morality will be better. There is a kind of cruel aestheticism in our politics where audacious evil will be celebrated for its audacity, and mundane goods will invite contempt because they are mundane.

As opposed to non mundane goods like putting too fine on something Mehta, potentially, shoves up his arse.

These proposals are not about solving a problem. What is playing out in Kashmir is the warped psyche of a great civilisation at its insecure worst. The BJP thinks it is going to Indianise Kashmir. But, instead, what we will see is potentially the Kashmirisation of India: The story of Indian democracy written in blood and betrayal.

The BJP thinks the Hindus of Jammu and the Hindus and Buddhists of Ladakh will do better if they are no longer at the mercy of the Muslims of the Valley. 
My guess is the Valley will be a Puritanical remittance economy supporting low level stone-pelting. Once the Center's money is diverted from Muslim politicians to Hindus and Buddhists, the non Muslim areas will continue to 'Indianize'. The Valley can stew in its own juices. However, there will be one big change. Previously, Kashmiri traders got visas to China. That will stop. Why? The ideology driving the Valley will be equally noxious to the Chinese. Indeed, what China is doing to the Uighur is the template for something similar along its 'Belt & Road'. Peak Jihadism is over. The Chinese are coming and they take no prisoners.

It is sad to think of Mehta potentially penning cri de coeurs like the above using his own shit because he put too fine a point on his pen and shoved it up his ass. Still how else can the story of Indian democracy be written by an utter cretin?