Article 370 Abrogation: 'Liberal' blind spot about inequalities in Jammu and Kashmir is astounding

For the last few days, ever since the Modi-Shah duo moved into the final phase of its Mission Kashmir – with some astute legal manoeuvring that’d gladden Harvey Specter’s heart, those who love to call themselves ‘liberals’ have gone into a frenzy unable to understand how the clock has been reset on independent India’s most persistent problem – the Kashmir conundrum.

The Kashmir problem has been around so long that there was hardly any new argument being made about it or solutions proposed. This was the only thing that hadn't been tried out. One doesn't need to be a legal eagle to understand Article 370 and its corresponding legal subsequents are deeply divisive but what’s rather hard to fathom is why those of a ‘liberal’ dispensation are so opposed to equality.

 There is only one logical explanation excluding hypocrisy – groupthink.

Why else would a group of people – ranging from queer people to allies of Dalits to self-styled feminists – lose their collective cool over the removal of a highly divisive piece of legislation which goes against the ethos of this country and is discriminatory against women, Dalits and the members of the LGBT community.

For the uninitiated, the term groupthink was first coined by William H Whyte Jr in 1952 and initial research on it was pioneered by Irving Janis who termed it as an analogy of a term coined by an author ‘liberals’ love to quote the most – George Orwell.

The term is based on the Orwellian term doublethink which – when pared down to its bare bones means - the acceptance of contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination.

Not mincing words, Janis had written: “Groupthink is a term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context, groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly such a connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of group pressures.”

This means that when one signs up for a particular group, they try to minimise conflict and reach a consensus decision without using their brain cells.

This groupthink appears to have taken our Indian ‘liberalism’ to a very bizarre place. Many ardent feminists, queer allies, DBA allies and their ilk are out on the streets ostensibly supporting Kashmiris (just Kashmiris mind you, the people of Jammu and Ladakh don’t enter the equation) changing their display pictures to red.

To put it in terms they will understand, it’s the equivalent of going to a Pride Parade and supporting the person carrying the sign that says transwomen are not women.

It feels like being a ‘liberal’ today is playing cultural bingo where you – by default – love and hate some particular things.

 You’ve to love cats and dogs; but mock those who revere cows.  One has to save Aarey and blame EVMs. Read columns by intellectuals and lament about India’s soul, laugh at every repetitive joke from ‘anti-establishment’ comedians no matter how many times one has heard it.  

One must despise Aadhaar and call everyone associated with the BJP ‘fascist’.

All progressive values batting for equality appear to go haywire when encountered with Islamism, and sadly this isn’t a phenomenon exclusive to India. One has often seen the same people who write angry op-eds about the patriarchal trappings of ghungat, hail the hijab as a clothing of women’s empowerment.  Karva Chauth is supposed to be regressive but fasting during Ramadan is freedom of religion and adherence to a great faith.

The internet, which was supposed to set us free, appears to have made us even more cloistered, more confused, myopic and to even conform more.  

By this quirk of politics, Islamists often ally themselves with progressives in liberal democracies. The reverse – where fundamentalists often support progressive allies in their own countries – doesn’t happen for obvious reasons.

Of course, such blind faith often leads to the rise of a muscular right-wing nationalism we see around the globe.

In the past decade or so, the fight for self-determination has morphed into a call for Jihad, resembling the radical Islamist movements across the world where the aim is to establish a caliphate.

As recently as May, the Islamic State had announced that it had opened its newest branch in Kashmir.

Zakir Musa, who had replaced slain terrorist commander of Hizbul Mujahideen Burhan Wani had even said: “Whenever we are fighting with a gun or throwing rocks, this should not be for nationalism but for Islam.”

A student of Sharda University,  Noida, who had joined the Islamic State was convinced to come home.

The aim, as is the goal among most terrorist organisations was to get rid of the Gray Zone and ensure there are no moderates left. 

Musa was killed in May, but the battle in Kashmir had gone from secession to Jihad a while ago, with Islamic State flags making an appearance during Friday prayers but it’s the reality that ‘liberals’ happily ignored. 

The same has happened with Article 370 – a terribly misogynist, anti-queer, anti-Dalit, anti-tribal legislation. Somehow the people who claim to fight for women’s equality are happy with a law that stops them from inheriting property based on who they marry (despite the 2002 amendment, the situation remained dire for women who married outsiders to inherit property).

They are happy with a group of Valmikis being forced to remain sanitation workers because they can’t get permanent residency and even their descendants can’t aspire to anything better. They’ve no qualms about the people of Ladakh not having a voice but will go ecstatic over every op-ed in foreign editorials written by a select coterie of people.

They will claim to fight for equality all day – preferably sitting in some track 2 diplomacy meet at a foreign locale - but then demand separate laws for one part of the country. One can argue about the way Article 370 was implemented ad nauseum, but to suggest that the article 370 was some edifice of constitutionality is to go against every tenet of liberalism.

So, go ahead. Change your DPs to red. Do whatever you want, just don’t delude yourself into thinking you’re liberal in its true sense of term. Your ignorance doesn’t give you a veto on the facts. 

The author Nirmalya Dutta is Chief Copy Editor DNA. Opinions are his own and not necessarily endorsed by ZMCL.