Editorial
|
|
|
| | Sheikh’s uninheritable legacy | | Legendary leader’s successors lack the ability to manage fragmented political arena | | Radical transformation of the political landscape of Jammu and Kashmir, from what it was at the time of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah’s demise on September 8, 1982, defines the long qualitative distance between the past and present era. Sheikh’s towering persona encompassed recognisable diverse strands of his inclusive politics. The vacuum left behind by him has taken a heavy toll of this particular aspect of leadership. Thirty years on, there is no one anywhere on the scene who could measure up to being somewhere near him; not to speak of being where the stalwart had stood all through his half a century long public life. The secret of his enviable hold on his people lay in his rare ability to strike a common chord with their aspirations even as his own political pendulum oscillated from one extreme to another. Sheikh jealously guarded his credibility by identifying himself and his politics and ideology with the prevailing popular sentiment. He was never a great student of history and yet he went on to become the history maker, largely because of his integrative characteristics.
Although the compulsions of politics in his time made him to start and promote his political ideology from the pulpit of shrines and mosques he never allowed it to deflect himself from pursuing a secular course. That was the innate strength of the man. Not that his politics or its pursuit was flawless. Far from it. Sheikh thrived in creating controversies, often needless and politically unwise, to such an extent that, at times, it reflected poorly upon his consistency. Analysts also blame him for poor judgement at certain crucial moments of history. Depending on from which angle he is sought to be retrospectively judged, his leadership is easily vulnerable to diverse, often mutually confusing, if not contradictory, interpretation. And that is, perhaps, what makes Sheikh Abdullah the Sher-e-Kashmir.
In today’s splintered scenario, there is one bit or two of the Sheikh legacy present in each and every shade of the badly fragmented political landscape. In the absence of a matching tall personality to encompass it wholesomely, these inherited pieces of his legacy are locked in mortal combat. The result is that there is lack of coherence in the narrative, be it on the right side of the accession or the wrong side.
There is no doubt that the Sheikh too had to pay the price of his part of inconsistencies. What he did in 1947 was undone by what he sought to do in 1953. And what he sought to achieve in 1953 was wiped off by what he eventually settled for in 1975. Issues arising out of these tumultuous developments would continue to haunt Sheikh’s motherland and its generations. Yet it is a fact of history that Sheikh was able to retain—and demonstrate—his unrivalled hold on the hearts and minds of his people till the last moment. They continued to trust him, more than anyone else.
Today, in the year 2012, that trust has evaporated. Fragmentation of politics across the board has created parasites and minions. Utter disillusionment with politics and politicians is leading to cynicism. The atmosphere of hopelessness is all-pervading. Sheikh’s successors lack the stature to measure up to the expectations of the people they claim to represent. It is equally true of those who sit across the table at the opposite end. Lack of conviction and lack of credibility is the prevailing hallmark. Sheikh Abdullah was the product of his circumstances, as much as vice versa. The era in which he made his appearance on the scene and held on to it until his death 30 years ago belonged to him and none else. That part of his legacy remains uninheritable. |
|
|
|
|
Comment on this Story |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|