Author:
Publication: The Times
of India
Date: July 9, 2000
Arun Shourie looks a
bit out of place in Yojna Bhawan; after all it is as editor and investigative
journalist that he made his mark.Shourie's ministerial responsibilities
have, however, not dimmed his razor-sharp brain or his ability to dissect
complex politico-legal matters. He talks to Vidya Subrahmaniam and Rahul
Shivshankar on the J&K autonomy resolution.
Q: Why did the government
rush through the decision on J&K autonomy without even a debate?
A: On the contrary,
the autonomy report has been with government for quite some time. It has
been examined in detail. It was found that while the committee gave a long
list of laws which it said must be reversed, it provided no justification
for its proposals. And when the matter came to the cabinet, all points
of view as well as facts and arguments were considered. Contrast this with
what happened when a similar report was sent from Tamil Nadu to Mrs Gandhi.
All that was done in that instance, was that a bare acknowledgement was
sent to the chief minister!
Q: Farooq Abdullah says
some of the ministers have not even read the report.
A: The position is the
opposite. It is the committee which produced a command performance. Please
look at the terms of reference. These were not to examine,why the extension
of a law or Article to J&K had created any difficulties for the state.
These were to spell out the steps -- in effect, to merely list the laws
that must be scrapped -- which would take the state back to the position
of 1953! Therefore, it is not the cabinet which pre-judged the issue. It
is those who set up the committee and the committee itself which had pre-judged
the issue.
Q: Abdullah says he is
open to negotiation on the autonomy issue. So why is the government unwilling
to talk to him?
A: In fact, Dr Abdullah
has been in touch with various persons in government -- he met the Prime
Minister twice before the cabinet decision was taken. And even before this,
he was continuously in touch with various sections of government regarding
the affairs of Jammu and Kashmir.
Q: Doesn't the cabinet
decision weaken Abdullah vis-a-vis the Hurriyat?
A: The Hurriyat is not
strengthened or weakened either way. When there was no move to talk with
anybody, we were accused of not initiating talks. When the impression gathered
ground that may be some talks are going to be scheduled with Hurriyat,
then it was: ``Why are you talking to the Hurriyat? They have lost ground
completely.'' There is no doubt that Dr Abdullah is the focal point of
the government of Kashmir. He is the leader of the elected representatives,
and the cabinet decision does not in any way close the door on continued
exchanges with him. To the contrary. The emphasis of the cabinet decision
is on two points: First, on strengthening states within the context of
national unity and, second, on addressing the real problems of Kashmir
-- rooting out cross-border terrorism and accelerating development. On
these the Centre has assured ``all possible assistance.''
Q: But is the government
going to talk to the Hurriyat?
A: Please ask the Prime
Minister and Mr Advani. All I know is that everything that is being done
is being done with the full knowledge of and in consultation with Farooq
Abdullah.
Q: But why did the cabinet
rush through the decision?
A: Just imagine the
situation which would have arisen if the decision had been delayed, or
if it had been equivocal. For instance, the Akalis in Punjab, the AGP in
Assam, may be even some sections in Tamil Nadu, would have been under unbearable
pressure to pass similar resolutions in their Assemblies.
Q: Why is autonomy equated
with secession?
A: You are being carried
away by a word, `autonomy'. What are the specific recommendations of this
committee which the Cabinet had to consider? Financial integration of the
state with the rest of India was brought about in 1954: once you go back
to 1953, the jurisdiction of the Reserve Bank goes, they get the right
to have their own currency, etc. Customs, Excise and P&T integration
was brought about in 1954: once you go back to 1953, separate customs posts
come up on the border of Kashmir with the rest of India. The jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court, the Election Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor
General was extended to Kashmir in 1960: once you to back to 1953, each
of these institutions loses locus standi in Kashmir. Article 356 was extended
to Kashmir in 1964, as well as Article 357: if you accept the proposal
of this committee, and subsequently there is a constitutional break down
in Kashmir, the country would have no recourse, no remedy. Article 249,
by which the Centre can legislate on a matter of grave importance -- like
protection of our borders -- once the council of states, that is the Rajya
Sabha, passes a resolution to that effect, was extended to Kashmir in 1986.
That would go. Article 256, under which states are obliged to assist the
Union in the discharge of its functions, was extended in 1986: therefore,
the Centre would lose even this capacity. If you go back to 1953, even
the so-called constitution of Jammu and Kashmir goes out of the window,
because it was adopted in 1957. Therefore, do not get misled by a mere
word, `Autonomy', please look at the specifics of the proposal.
I believe the question
of states' rights is completely different from phrases like autonomy; the
current proposal was not a proposal to strengthen states' rights; it was
to create a country within a country. And the moment any government accedes
to such a proposal it will set in motion forces of the exact kind that
so swiftly went out of hand and fragmented the Soviet Union.
Q: Do you accept that
people of Jammu and Kashmir are alienated?
A: I believe that every
people can be inflamed in the wrong direction -- as happened in the case
of Punjab in the early 1980s. When a person like me pointed to the rhetoric
of Bhindranwale and the consequences it would have -- I was dubbed communal.
But the course events took vindicated our forebodings. In Kashmir, to divert
attention from their non-performance, successive governments have stoked
these mythical debates. For instance, one of the central facts about Kashmir
today is that on the ground, development works are not just visible. In
fact, the per capita Central assistance to Kashmir is 14 times that to
Bihar, it is 11 times that to Tamil Nadu, it is six times that to even
a beleaguered state like Assam. Where has this money gone? To divert attention
from this question, successive rulers of Kashmir on the one hand insinuate
that money has not come from Delhi, and, on the other, that if only they
get something called ``autonomy'', milk and honey would flow.
Q: Dr Abdullah has said
that the involvement of the United States in Kashmir is a fact
A: If that is the case
then the decision of the Cabinet is doubly welcome: Everyone behind this
move would by now have got an unambiguous message.
