Opinion | Recognition Beyond Differences: Mirwaiz Umar Farooq’s Acknowledgement of Narendra Modi and the Importance of Civil Discourse

“A democracy is measured not by the absence of disagreement, but by the ability to keep conversations alive despite it.”

History has taught us that there is rarely any advancement that is made without either silence or confrontation. Whether it is about attaining independence, struggling against apartheid or bringing reconciliation between countries, every step towards progress starts with dialogues. As has been proven before, lasting peace cannot be established if you talk only to your friends, and you should even engage in dialogues with those you consider adversaries. In the ever-polarizing world of today, the lesson has never been more necessary to learn.

Differences of opinion on politics in democratic societies have been around forever. People can have different opinions on many matters, and some can even support leaders whose positions do not agree with their views. It does not mean, however, that all these differences should erase respect from the picture. The main advantage of a democracy is the possibility of recognizing a good deed despite it coming from somebody who politically differs from you. Healthy societies grow where contrasting views are permitted to live side by side.

This notion was recently revived through the statements of regarding. In thinking about the first few years of the Prime Minister’s rule, Mirwaiz spoke about the hope that had been connected with his stress upon the development of friendly relations between India and its neighbours. Most importantly, he stressed the very principle which is frequently overlooked in modern politics—that the recognition of a good action on the part of an individual does not automatically imply endorsement of all his policies and viewpoints.

The importance of such a gesture consists not so much in the individuals themselves as in the democratic attitude embodied in it. The political atmosphere nowadays often makes people think in extreme terms—either fully supportive or fully opposed to the politician. Such a way of thinking leaves no room for any subtlety at all. Yet democratic maturity requires precisely that ability to analyse individual steps for their real worth, praising the elements of progress and peace while questioning others.

Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, for a long time now, has been arguing that dialogue presents more possibilities than endless enmity. The demand by him for dialogue between India and Pakistan is based on the idea that, no matter how difficult the dispute might be, it is impossible to resolve anything when there is a complete breakdown in communications. Dialogue may not solve the issue instantly, but it makes trust less of a problem and keeps the possibility of resolution open.

This idea is not new. The diplomacy of India has in the past relied on dialogue despite all difficulties. Both former prime ministers of India have engaged themselves in diplomatic dialogue with Pakistan despite difficulties.

The Mirwaiz has also spoken out on civil society-driven initiatives. He, along with more than a hundred leading citizens of India and Pakistan,has endorsed a call on both countries to resume dialogue and enhance their peace-building efforts. This demonstrates an important point which is often forgotten: in times when government diplomacy lags behind, ordinary people, intellectuals, spiritual leaders, and civil organisations can still cultivate hope for reconciliation. Peace is not only about government diplomacy but also the societies which do not give up on dialogue.

Civil discussion is needed not only in India and Pakistan but all over the world. In recent years, democratic societies have been facing increasing polarisation of politics. Public discussion has changed in the era of social media, where people can easily voice their opinion but find it more difficult to hear someone else. Discussion is often devalued in the age of algorithms rewarding outrage, confidence, and polarising attitudes.

But democracy, paradoxically, hinges upon the reverse. Civility does not ask people to let go of their opinions. Rather, it asks them to justify them through reason, proof, and civility. Exposure to contrary views does not undermine their beliefs. On the contrary, it strengthens them. As has been exemplified time and again, true power rests in confronting one’s adversaries in dignity and not in hate.

In a country like India, where diversity is so pronounced, such an approach holds particular importance. Our democracy includes myriad religions, languages, cultures, and ideologies. It is natural that such diversity will lead to different views being formed. But it should make those different views occasions for debate and discussion and not division and polarisation.

Indeed, the speech by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq teaches us a lesson that goes far beyond just politics at any one time. The fact that recognition of a good action cannot mean the abandonment of one’s principles is something important to remember in all cases of democratic debate.

In reality, the act of giving recognition despite differences is not an issue only between two personalities. Rather, it is a fundamental value of democracy itself. In democracies, it is not only the elections, the constitution, or the institutions that keep things going. It is the very conversations that the citizens of democracies have with each other. When respect remains amid disagreement, then dialogue is possible even when there is controversy. And where there is dialogue, there is hope.

@bhatbisma044@gmail.com