Congress, BJP manifestos on national security Pacifism vs nationalism The Quint 09 Apr 19
https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/congress-bjp-manifestos-2019-elections-national-security-kashmir
Congress, BJP manifestos on national security: Pacifism vs nationalism The Quint 09 Apr 19
With elections drawing close, political parties have released their manifestoes projecting for the nation their promises in the years ahead. How many promises would be kept, how many ignored, remains a mute question. The Congress Manifesto, titled, ‘Hum Nibhayenge’ was released on 02 Apr, while the BJP Manifesto, titled, ‘Sankalp Patra’ was released on 08 Apr.
While development, offer for sops and seeking to project better governance is common in both manifestoes, there is a difference in their approach to national security and Kashmir. While the Congress has adopted an all-round development approach, the BJP has stressed on nationalism as its main plank.
In a rather interesting development, the Congress President, Rahul Gandhi met Lt Gen DS Hooda, the erstwhile Northern Army Commander who oversaw the first surgical strike into Pak post the Uri attack in Feb and announced that he has been requested to create a ‘national security doctrine’ for the party. Lt Gen Hooda, understanding elections are around the corner put together a team and submitted his doctrine before the Congress released its manifesto.
Surprisingly, neither the doctrine nor any references to it found place in the Congress manifesto. Hence, the reason behind creating the doctrine, other than to seek political mileage, remains a mystery. This lack of inclusion has impacted the way the Congress views national security and Kashmir in its manifesto.
An analysis of both manifestoes indicate the variation in viewpoints of the parties. Kashmir has specifically been covered by the Congress under a separate chapter, while the BJP covers the same as part of national security. Both the parties have adopted a different approach to the state. The Congress approach appears conciliatory and a repeat of the past, where it seeks to merge the population by a soft approach, whereas the BJP seeks to project a tough stance and talks from a position of strength.
The Congress Kashmir section covers nine points. Of them a few need analysis. It commences by announcing its intention of appointing three interlocutors, open dialogue with all stakeholders, redeploy the army from the interior to border security and review the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). With regards to AFSPA there is a specific reference to ‘balance the requirements of security and protection of Human Rights’.
A simple analysis would indicate that these issues have been picked from earlier manifestoes and placed. The Manmohan led Congress government at the centre had in 2006 conducted a series of ‘round table conferences on Kashmir’, reports of which appear to have been dumped. It had subsequently in 2010 appointed three interlocutors, journalist Dilip Padgaonkar, Prof MM Ansari and Prof Mrs Radha Kumar. Their reports too appear to have been ignored all through its tenure upto 2014. What it hopes to gain by reappointing them again could be anyone’s guess.
No political party in India, including the Congress and BJP, have yet to define who stakeholders in Kashmir are, yet continue to harp on talks with stakeholders. Valley based political parties consider the separatists and Pakistan as stakeholders, while the centre does not. Hence, such terms in the Congress manifesto mean nothing. Redeployment of the army has been attempted on multiple occasions, only to be reverted as terrorism rises when the army moves out. Each time this happens, it becomes tougher for security forces to regain the advantage.
AFSPA has always remained controversial and would be so. In Kashmir, with continuing Pak support to militancy, attempts at diluting AFSPA would be met with strict resistance, especially from security forces, who have faced the brunt of casualties. Hence, it may not be easy to tamper with it.
AFSPA has similar implications for Kashmir as it has for the North East. Thus, covering it under national security, implying both the North East and Kashmir would have been more beneficial for the Congress and here it could have mentioned diluting it. The Congress manifesto has no reference to resettling Kashmiri Pundits. The Congress approach appears to be based on its election tie-up with the National Conference.
The BJP on the other hand has played to the galleries across the nation, ignoring the valley. On Kashmir it has stated just three points. The first, though general, is zero tolerance to terrorism and the second is the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35 A. In its third point it mentions resettling Kashmiri Pundits. It has understood that it has no hold in Kashmir and would neither gain any seats from there and, hence could adopt this approach. There has been no mention of seeking a legal solution to removal of the articles, which is bound to follow.
Both political parties have adopted a similar approach towards capability enhancement of the military. Both have promised to devote resources for the same. The BJP has even quoted its latest addition, that of commencing the production of manufacture of the AK 203 in Amethi as an example. The Congress has promised to enhance the defence share of the budget.
The one aspect missed by the BJP and covered by the Congress has been its promise to review the apex management of defence and appoint a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). This has been the demand for ages, recommended by every committee set up by the government for decades, yet ignored. This does indicate that the Congress has plans to at least consider it, appointing one is a mute question.
Both have sought to grab the attention of veteran voters, who do form a considerable number in some regions. The Congress has promised lateral entry into the Central Armed Police Forces (CPAFs), implementing complete OROP and enhancing capacities in military hospitals, specifically for them. These were issues which have always concerned the veteran community.
The BJP has played its release of OROP (though it remains a one-time grant) and promised to create better opportunities for settlement of veterans, including planning their settlement three years prior to retirement. Such a statement is vague and unimplementable. A soldier is only aware of the end of his promotion vacancies based on age earliest about a year and a half or two prior to his retirement. It appears to be just a vote grabbing gimmick and would be seen through.
Modernization of CAPFs remains common to both manifestoes. Similar is action against infiltration and strengthening of border security. Both have approached these issues with a positive frame.
Another stark difference is the approach to Pak. While the BJP has ignored the mention of Pak and SAARC in its manifesto, the Congress has stated that it desires to ‘work with SAARC and ASEAN countries to enhance the volume of trade, investments, tourism and cultural exchanges and reap the benefits of geographical proximity.’ This was appreciated by the Pak newspaper dawn which stated that ‘It (manifesto) revealed an indirect connect with Pakistan through the SAARC template.’
In summary, the differences between the two manifestoes is the handling of Kashmir and national security. While the Congress has sought a conciliatory approach, the BJP has played on its rising nationalism card. In the ultimate analysis, if either party, on assuming the mantle, even deliver 10-15% of their promises, it would be a benefit.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army