HVK Archives: Alienation is born of misrule
Alienation is born of misrule - The Indian Express
Hari Om
()
17 July 1997
Title: Alienation is born of misrule - Return to 1953 would be disastrous
Author: Hari Om
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: July 17, 1997
Dr Farooq Abdullah makes use of all available fora in and outside India to
reiterate that his government is committed to making the Union Government
redefine the state's relations with New Delhi strictly in accordance with
the provisions of the October 26, 1947 Instrument of Accession, the January
26, 1950 Constitution Application Order and the July 24,1952 Nehru-Sheikh
Abdullah Delhi agreement. He asserts that the root cause of the
seven-year-old insurgency in the state and alienation of Kashmiris resulted
from the conspiracy of New Delhi and its Kashmiri agents to bypass these
accords - under which Jammu and Kashmir was to enjoy maximum internal
autonomy -and bring the state surreptitiously within the purview of Central
laws and institutions and thereby erode Kashmiriat.
He puts forth a solution to assuage the "hurt feelings" of Kashmiris and
solve the 50-year-old Kashmir problem: the Centre must withdraw its laws
and institutions and restore without any delay the "pre-1953 constitutional
position" and meet all the State's financial needs.
Will this restoration strengthen democracy in the state or redress the
grievances of the Kashmiris and re-empower them? Even a cursory scrutiny
of the political system prior to the dismissal and arrest of Sheikh
Abdullah on August 9, 1953, suggests that it will not. On the contrary, a
restoration will - apart from emboldening believers in the concept of
'Nizam-e-Mustafa' and Jammu and Kashmir's separation from India - at once
subvert all democratic institutions, deprive the common people of whatever
civil liberties and political rights they have enjoyed so far and fetter
the Press and the judiciary. The reason: such a drastic return will arm
the council of ministers with absolute, unbridled executive, legislative
and judicial powers.
It needs to be realised that between September 7, 1939 and January 26,
1957, the state ruler and the ruling elites derived their authority from
the Jammu and Kashmir Constitutional Act (JKCA) of 1939. The ruler, Hari
Singh, had enacted it to mollify Sheikh Abdullah's supporters. They had
been demanding since 1931 the replacement of autocracy by democracy.
Though an Assembly of 75 elected and nominated members was set up in
accordance with the Act of 1939, Sheikh Abdullah and his colleagues
continued their protest. In fact, they repudiated the JKCA of 1939 and
declared that they would not withdraw their struggle until a responsible
government had been established.
They opposed the JKCA on seven counts. First, it contained provisions
which obstructed the formation of a responsible government and facilitated
the domination and exploitation of the people. Besides, it was not framed
by a Constituent Assembly elected by adult franchise, but by the ruler and
his henchmen. It recognised the ruler and not the people as the "fountain
head of all essential attributes of sovereignty". It did not recognise the
"doctrine of supremacy of the legislature". It did not provide for an
independent judiciary. It did not grant freedom to the Press by repelling
the highly obnoxious Jammu and Kashmir Press and Publication Act (JKPPA) of
1932 under which the ruling elite could seize any press and fine the Press
for 'seditious' writing.) And finally, it, like the Government of India
Acts of 1909, 1919 and 1935, introduced communal electorates.
When, despite their five-year-long struggle, Hari Singh did not introduce
any democratic principle, Sheikh Abdullah and other pro-democracy leaders
stepped up their efforts. In the 1946 Quit Kashmir movement, National
Conference cadres openly defied the ruler's authority, confronted police,
attacked police stations and other symbols of the Government, demanded the
dethronement of Hari Singh and the establishment of a people's government.
Order was restored only after the police and Army swung into action and
imprisoned Sheikh Abdullah and other prominent leaders on the charge of
sedition.
It was under these circumstances, and in the wake of full-scale war with
Pakistan, that Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India on October 26, 1947.
Ironically, the state's accession and Sheikh Abdullah's appointment as
Emergency Administrator at Nehru's behest did not ameliorate the lot of the
people. For Sheikh Abdullah, rather than repealing the JKCA of 1939, chose
to exploit it to consolidate his position, marginalise his senior
colleagues like Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq, Mohi-ud-Din
Kara and Maulan Masoodi and put down his political rivals. He also
exploited the JKPPA to muzzle the Press. In short, his rule was as
autocratic as Hari Singh's.
It was only during the reign of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad (August
1953-September 1963) that a number of steps were taken to democratise the
polity. These included the abrogation on May 14, 1954 of Section 75 of the
JKCA under which the Council of Ministers was the final interpreter of the
Constitution, the abolition of the largely committed Board of Judicial
Advisors, extension of the jurisdiction of the courts of India to J&K on
May 14, 1954 and the adoption on November 17, 1956 of a new Constitution by
the Constituent Assembly and its application on January 26,1957. The
people's natural right to shape and control political, administrative and
economic policy was recognised and the Press and judiciary freed.
It is thus clear that a return to the 'pre 1953 constitutional position'
will grievously harm the legitimate rights of the people of Kashmir. The
roots of the Kashmiris' alienation lie not in Central laws but in the
National Conference's gross misrule, bureaucratic bungling and denial of
the legitimate expression of popular will. If the Central Government
sincerely wishes to conciliate the alienated Kashmiris, it must repudiate
outright any such suggestion. Not only this, it must ensure that Dr Farooq
Abdullah provides a clean, efficient, fair and responsive administration.
his is the only demand of an overwhelming majority of the population.
Any attempt on the part of the Centre to recognise the National Conference
(which got just 38 per cent of the total votes polled in the September 1996
Assembly elections, but won 66 per cent of the seats owing to the
first-past-the-post system) as the sole factor in the state's polity and to
accept its demands without analysing their implications would be dangerous.
It will not only spark off a political explosion in Jammu and Ladakh and
jeopardise the legitimate political interests of the three lakh internally
displaced Kashmiri Hindus, but also lead to India's balkanisation.
(The writer is a professor in Jammu University)
Back
Top
|
