HVK Archives: IE: "Kashmir's Autonomy Bogey"
IE: "Kashmir's Autonomy Bogey" - The Indian Express
Jagmohan
()
8 October 1996
Title : Kashmir's autonomy bogey
Author : Jagmohan
Publication : The Indian Express
Date : October 8, 1996
Before and during the recent elections to the State Assembly of Jammu and
Kashmir, the issue of autonomy was resurrected. After the elections, too,
it will remain at the centre stage of politics of the State and its rela-
tions with the Union.
Few in the country, however, understand the implications of the autonomy
issue in Kashmir. Fewer still understand the distinction between autonomy
that leads to efficiency in administration, speed in development and
fuller reali- sation of the creative potential of a community and the
autonomy that breeds separatism, subversion and secession and stokes the
forces of parochialism and chauvinism.
A blunder was committed when former Prime Minister Nara- simha Rao made
his ill conceived 'Kashmir-Short-of-Azadi' statement in the Rajya Sabha on
May 17, 1995. This blunder was compounded by the United Front Government
by including the promise of 'maximum autonomy in its Common Minimum
Programme. These grave lapses came handy to the National Conference and
it made the issue of autonomy a major plank of its election campaign.
Immediately after the victory at the polls, Farooq Abdullah declared that
autonomy would be at the top of his party's agenda.
It is a measure of India's superficial thinking on issues of crucial
importance that those who have encouraged the composition of the ,autonomy
ode' as well as those who are singing it now have never bothered to
address them- selves to the requirement of the working relationship
between the State and the Union.
Take, for instance. the item of financial integration. Presently, it is
the Union finances that provide the entire funds for the State's Five-Year
Plans and also for a substantial part of the non-Plan expenditure.
Accord- ing to the Reserve Bank bulletin (December, 1995: Appen- dix I &
II), per capita Central assistance for 1994-95 was Rs 3,010 for Jammu and
Kashmir, as against Rs 190 for Bihar, Rs 305 for Tamil Nadu, Rs 385 for
Rajasthan and Rs 341 for UP. In the case of J&K, 90 per cent of this
assistance was in the shape of grants and 10 per cent as loans, while for
the four States mentioned above, it was 30 per cent grants and 70 per cent
loans. Likewise, the per capita non-Plan grants for J&K in the same year
came to Rs 720 while they were Rs 72 for Bihar, Rs 23 for Tamil Nadu, Rs
81 for Rajasthan and Rs 23 for UP. All this shows the tremendous gain
that flowed to the J&K State from the financial link with the Union. What
will happen if this link is snapped and the Union's jurisdic- tion is
restricted to External Affairs, Defence and Communications. as is being
advocated by the protagonists of 'maximum autonomy'?
If funds continue to be made available, as at present, and the State is
allowed to have a final word in other matters, it could virtually convert
the State into a theocracy. In that event, will not a situation arise in
which a theocratic entity is fed by the Union committed to secularism?
Take another item-extension of Article 356 of the Consti- tution of India
which empowers the President of India to bring the State under his rule.
It is argued that this extension erodes the State autonomy. But no one
responds to the query as to what will happen if there is a break- down of
the constitutional machinery in the State or if the State refuses to
comply with any direction concerning Defence, Foreign Affairs or
Communications. Suppose the Governor has the corresponding powers., then
does it not mean that the President would have to submit to the decision
of the Governor, his own appointee?
Again, suppose the Governor is made 'Sadar-e-Riyasat', who is elected by
the State Assembly, then, would not granting the final say to the
'Sadar-e-Riyasat' amount to subordinating the Union to the State? If the
President withdraws his recognition to the Sadar-e-Riyasat but the State
Assembly once again elects the same person as Sadar-e-Riyasat, will it not
cause a constitutional deadlock? And who will resolve this deadlock, if
even the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is ended"
It is unfortunate that instead of removing the provision that foments the
forces of separatism. the few integra- tive links that exist are sought to
be scrapped. It should not be forgotten that, even at the time of the
Kashmir Accord (1975), when the impact of the separatist forces was not so
acutely felt, Indira Gandhi refused to set the clock back. She did not
agree to scrap any of the essential links established over the time.
Partha- sarathi and Afzal Beg, who reviewed these links on behalf of
Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Abdullah respectively could find hardly anything
objectionable in them.
It is not out of place to point out that neither the Government of Sheikh
Abdullah nor that of Farooq Abdullah could formulate. in concrete terms,
any proposal and send the same to the Government of India, with regard to
withdrawal of any law or provision of the Indian Consti- tution which had
been extended to the State during the period August, 1953 to February,
1975. In reply to my Unstarred Question No. 1871 in the Rajya Sabha, the
Government of India stated on December 14, 1995: "The State Government
did not propose withdrawal of any law or constitutional provision extended
to the State during the period prior to 1975: "
The plain truth is that no provision of the Indian Con- stitution has been
extended to J&K which is not necessi- tated by practical considerations
and which is not in the interest of common Kashmiris. What objection, for
in- stance, could be taken to the extension of jurisdiction of the
Election Commission or the Supreme Court or the Comptroller and
Auditor-General of India" These exten- sions merely make available better
justice and better accounting and audit arrangements. What fault, again,
could be found with labour welfare laws? In what way do they militate
against the identity or personality of Kashmir?
In fact, there is a vast area which remains under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the State Government. It includes a substantial portion
of the Concurrent List and also residuary powers. The citizens of India
are not ipso facto the citizens of J&K. Even if they have been residing
in the State for years, they cannot acquire
right of settlement and hold property in the State. They have no right to
vote in the election to the State Assem- bly or the local bodies or
panchayats. What is worse, a woman citizen of J&K loses her property and
other rights if she marries a non-State subject. No declaration of
financial emergency can be made with regard to J&K as Article 360 of the
Indian Constitution has not been applied to it. Article 365, which
authorises the Presi- dent of India to issue directions to the State
Govern- ment, in exercise of the executive power of the Union, has also
not been extended to J&K. Article 352, too, has only limited application.
When other States in the Union ask for greater autonomy. they do not mean
separation of identities. They really want devolution of power, so that
administrative and development work is done speedily. In J&K, the demand
for restoration of pre-1952 position stems from a different motivation.
Back
Top
|
