Author: Hari Om
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: July 30, 2002
URL: http://www.indian-express.com/archive_full_story.php?content_id=6781
Introduction: It is a document that
is rife with contradictions and cannot be implemented
While talking to The Indian Express
recently, the newly-appointed National Conference (NC) President Omar Abdullah
made a very significant statement on the autonomy issue (IE, July 19).
He said that ''his party was ready to be flexible on the issue by not being
adamant on a return to the pre-1953 constitutional status'' for J&K.
This clearly shows that the NC has
finally realised that its goal of a dispensation that restricts New Delhi's
jurisdiction over J&K to just defence, foreign affairs and communications
is unattainable. This is indeed a positive development.
However, the NC has not abandoned
the idea of a discussion on the April 1999 State Autonomy Committee Report
(SACR). In fact, both Omar and Farooq Abdullah have reiterated their stand
that a ''healthy discussion'' on the otherwise repudiated report cannot
and must not be avoided indefinitely.
Can the two Abdullahs and their
point-man, Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Shah, obtain any political concession on
the basis of the SACR? The answer is no. For, the report is nothing but
a very long stick with which the Centre can beat the NC itself. SACR is
poorly drafted.
Indeed, it is a blend of contradictions.
It is not possible to catalogue in this small piece all the contradictions
in the document. I will confine myself to one untenable suggestion, one
concealment and one accusation. The report says that the only way to win
the hearts of the alienated Kashmiris and forge a lasting peace in the
state is to implement the '1952 Delhi Agreement' signed between Prime Minister
Nehru and J&K Wazir-e-Aazm Sheikh Abdullah. No government can concede
to this demand. The reasons are not far to seek. The most important one
is that there exists no such thing as the 'Delhi Agreement'. What really
exists is a lengthy statement made by Nehru on the floor of the Lok Sabha
on July 24, 1952. The statement was to the effect that he and the Sheikh
had held some discussions on the Centre-state relations and that the discussions
were still inconclusive. No one can interpret this statement as agreement.
As for the allegation that the Centre
used dubious means in order to bring J&K under the constitutional organisation
of India, the less said, the better. A small quotation from the SACR itself
would be enough to lay bare the disparities between falsehood and the actual
position.
It states: ''Successive state governments
had in the past accorded their concurrence for various reasons and under
various political compulsions''. It needs to be underlined that Article
370 debars the Centre from extending any Central law to J&K without
the ''concurrence of the government of the state'' and that there is nothing
in the report which could in any way suggest that New Delhi has at any
point of time deviated from the path charted by Article 370.
The Abdullahs would do well to review
their stand on the SACR and come out with something beneficial for the
people of the troubled-state. The best course would be to bring to the
notice of the Centre specific anti-state statutes, coupled with a detailed
note on their negative impact on the state's polity. Both the prime minister
and the deputy prime minister have suggested this. The failure to do so
would result in the Abdullahs appearing sorry figures during the negotiations.
The ball is now in their court.
(The writer is professor of history,
Jammu University, and member, ICHR)
