Author: Virendra Parekh
Publication: The Observer
of Business and Politics
Date: July 20, 2000
The meeting between Vajpayee
and Farooq Abdullah was not expected to produce any dramatic decision.
It was essentially a public relations exercise intended to show both of
them in a better light, after the Union Cabinet's swift and unequivocal
rejection of the autonomy resolution passed by the J&K assembly. Having
demonstrated his firmness, Vajpayee was keen to show that the Centre had
not slammed the door on the so-called aspirations of the Kashmiri people.
Having proved his nuisance value, Farooq Abdullah wanted to show to the
Centre that he was willing to be 'reasonable'; and to the people of his
state that he still carried some weight in Delhi and needed to be placated
by the government.
It is safe to assume,
however, that things will not the same again. The stillborn resolution
will be raked up time and again by the interested parties to whip up hysteria,
and its rejection as the 'proof' of India's unwillingness to do justice
(whatever it means) to the people of Kashmir.
For this, blame the lopsided
debate in the media and unwillingness of the intelligentsia and political
leadership to face the real issues involved.
The whole debate in the
media is based on the implicit assumption that Kashmiri Muslims have only
rights and claims and the rest of India has only duties and responsibilities.
This assumption is justified on the ground that the situation in the state
is different. However, as we saw, the conditions which are special to the
state (its being a border state coveted by a hostile neighbour, subject
of four wars, partly under foreign occupation, battleground for militancy,
proxy war and cross-border terrorism) actually warrant an extra-strong
bond with the rest of the country and not more autonomy.
No doubt, J & K
is different from other states in an important respect. This difference,
though at the back of everyone's mind, is rarely spelt out: It is the only
Muslim-majority state in a Hindu-dominated India.
Surprisingly, this fact
has been used to put non-Kashmiri leaders on the defensive. Surprising,
because a truly secular state would have refused to divide its citizens
on religious lines and concede special status to any state only on the
basis of communal demography. Like the demand for uniform civil code, the
demand for abolition of Article 370 is essentially a secular demand, but
each is portrayed as an anti-Muslim and, therefore, an anti-secular demand.
It is urged that a demand
for more powers to the states cannot be regarded as anti-national per se.
If Tamil Nadu or West Bengal can seek more powers from the Union, why not
Jammu & Kashmir,? This is a valid argument, but misses the point. Autonomy,
in the context of Jammu & Kashmir, means autonomy from the Indian (read
Hindu) nation-state, and not just autonomy from the Central government.
Hence the insistence on nomenclatures like wazir-e-Azam and Sadr-e-Riyasat,
separate flag and separate constitution. Decentralisation or devolution
of more powers to (all) the states is basically an administrative matter,
though it can be coached in terms having political overtones. This will
hardly satisfy those who view Jammu & Kashmir as a political entity
distinct from the Indian nation. That is why Hurriyat leaders have contemptuously
rejected all the talk of autonomy, let alone decentralisation.
Many commentators have
proceeded to list the steps that could be taken to grant more autonomy
to the state, on the assumption that everyone in the state yearns for it.
But the ground reality is different. Jammu and Ladakh have heartily welcomed
the rejection of the autonomy resolution. Coming to the valley, it is surprising
how few commentators have even mentioned the sentiments and interests of
Kashmiri pundits.
There is, therefore,
a need to face the truth, speak the truth and take concrete measures. The
Centre must set the agenda. It must realise that what it chooses to do
or not do will have consequences far beyond the continuance or otherwise
of National Conference in the NDA. The BJP had long clamoured to set the
Kashmir problem right. Here is its chance.
The first truth to face
is that people of the state deserve a far better deal, both from the local
rulers as well as Delhi.
First hand accounts from
the valley (eg., Vidya Subramanyam ToI 13/7) suggest that the people are
fed up with India. There is little support for Pakistan, but even less
for India. India is blamed for all the ills of the state like poverty,
unemployment, lack of development, besides, of course, excesses of security
forces. There is no support for terrorists, but at the same time, militants
from PoK are looked upon as freedom fighters. Their preferences, according
to Ms Subramanyam, is: Independence, Pakistan, India.
India has no reason even
to consider the independence option either for the whole of the state or
just the valley. Kashmir has been a part of India since time immemorial.
The princely State of Jammu & Kahsmir acceded to India when the Britishers
left. Even if we set aside history of thousands of years, Kashmir's loss
will gravely jeopardise India's security. The cessation of this Muslim
majority state will have very serious repercussions in the rest of the
country.
Even for Kashmiris, independence
if it ever comes, will be a chimera. Pakistan will gobble it up in no time.
Even if its independence is underpinned by US or some other big power,
it will be a hotbed of international intrigue and a happy hunting ground
for all sorts of machinations.
If Kashmiris are unable
or unwilling to recognise this, that is no reason why the rest of the country
should suffer for it. Indian soldiers have shed their blood to defend it,
Indian government has poured billions of rupees into it, and India has
vital interests to protect in that state.
Kashmiris should realise
that many of their problems could be traced to the autonomy. If non-Kashmiri
Indians cannot buy property in the state, how could they set up businesses
and industries? The sense of aloofness, fostered and fortified by Article
370, has cost them dearly. Winning of hearts cannot be a one-way street.
If Tamilians, Bengalis and Gujaratis can maintain their regional identities,
there is no reason why Kashmiriat should be lost in the ocean of Indianness.
What J&K needs is
not more autonomy but better governance. More autonomy in the present circumstances
only mean more power to politicians from the valley to loot and oppress
the people. Over the decades, successive governments at the Centre have
given a free hand to local agents in return for 'managing' people of the
state. These agents have siphoned off nearly all the money poured into
the state, institutionalised corruption, neglected governance and development
works, rigged elections and whipped up anti-India chauvinism whenever it
suited them. The alienation engendered by their misdeeds has now hit us
in the face.
The first thing to do,
therefore, is to ensure genuine local self-government by holding panchayat
elections, to be followed by assembly elections. All parties and groups,
who claim to represent people of the state, should be urged to participate
in it. At the same time, release of funds should be linked to the progress
of development works.
The challenge in J&K
goes far beyond fighting terrorism. It is to rebuild the civil administration
and commence development works without making any concession whatsoever
to Islamic separatism. To meet it, the Centre should be clear about its
objectives and it must set the agenda without being dictated to by interests
hostile to India.
