Sunday, July 2, 2000		Lead Article

The special session of the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly, convened to discuss the Autonomy Committee Report, adopted the motion seeking restoration of the pre-1953 constitutional status earlier this week. Whatever the arguments for and against the demand for restoration of greater autonomy to the state, nationalist forces are worked up over the issue. M. L. Kak speaks to a cross-section of people about their views on autonomy.

THE political scenario in the troubled state of Jammu and Kashmir has become more complex and fluid with the adoption of the motion seeking restoration of the pre-1953 constitutional status. The demand for greater autonomy, as voiced by the ruling National Conference, has added a new dimension to the political mess in which the state has been embroiled during the last 10 years, following the escalation of Pakistan-sponsored proxy war.

The state, specially the Kashmir valley, has been torn between the protagonists of Azadi and those demanding the incorporation of the state with Pakistan. The installation of an elected government in 1996 had given a setback, politically, to the separatists. The election of Farooq Abdullah as Chief Minister in 1996 heralded a new hope. All those who had defied the threat from the militants and cast their votes had done so with dreams of living in peace and normalcy.

These dreams were, however, shattered not only because of the poor performance of the state government but also on account of Pak’s machinations under which large groups of foreign mercenaries were pushed into the state for engineering subversive violence. The successive rickety governments at the Centre, proved an Achilles’ heel for the nationalist forces, including the National Conference and the security forces.

Against the background of continued anti-insurgency operations, the Government of India announced its willingness to hold talks with the separatist conglomerate, All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC). This feeler sent out for talks with the APHC caused fear and confusion among the pro-Pak forces in Kashmir and peeved the National Conference leadership which feared that the Centre may forge a deal with the separatists by sidelining the ruling party.

The National Conference had announced in April last that the Autonomy Committee Report would be discussed in detail in a special session of the legislature. The state cabinet has already endorsed the report. It was not mandatory for the Chief Minister to convene a special session of the legislature to discuss the matter when members belonging to different political groups had voiced their opinion on the report during the budget session of the legislature in April last.

Whatever the arguments for and against the demand for restoration of greater autonomy to the state, nationalist forces are worked up over the timing of the convening of the special session of the Assembly to discuss the controversial issue. The state and the Central governments were engaged in tackling terrorism which had assumed serious dimensions with induction of suicide squads sent by the Pak agencies to attack the security camps, police headquarters and vital government installations.

The National Conference leadership is perhaps right when it states that it had raised the demand for the restoration of pre-1953 constitutional status to the state in the 1977 Assembly poll. It claims that the successive victory of the National Conference in the Assembly elections held in 1977, 1983, 1887, and 1996 was the result of the support of electorate to the demand which had been included in the poll manifesto of the party.

However the National Conference leaders have failed to explain as to why they did not pursue the matter as vigorously as they are doing now. Soon after the election victory in 1977, the then Chief Minister, Sheikh Abdullah, set up a cabinet subcommittee, headed by his deputy, Mirza Afzal Beg. When the Sheikh and the Beg fell out , D.D. Thakur, a cabinet minister, was asked to head the committee. The Thakur Committee produced a voluminous report. The foreword in which he said "the arms of the clock cannot go back", proved meaningful.The Thakur report was untraceable and would probably be gathering dust in the state archives.

Later, G.M. Shah, Farooq’s brother-in-law, set up another committee headed by G.N. Kochak. This committee was required to prepare a report on the need for restoring to the state pre-1953 constitutional status. The Kochak report was categorical in stating that the restoration of greater autonomy was beneficial for the people. Both these reports , however, proved an academic exercise in futility.

A close examination of the poll scenario during 1977, 1983, 1987 and 1996 Assembly elections indicates that restoration of greater autonomy, being one of NC programmes in the poll manifestoes, has not been the sole factor for the victory of the National Conference.

In 1977, the towering personality of the ailing Sheikh Abdullah, helped the NC sweep the poll in the Kashmir valley. It fared badly in the Jammu region. In 1983, the National Conference, led by Farooq Abdullah, had whipped up anti-Centre hysteria which enabled him to win power.In 1987, the NC-Congress alliance helped Farooq Abdullah gain power. In 1996, people were wary of the long spell of the Central rule and wanted to have an elected government. This enabled Farooq Abdullah’s party to win two-thirds majority in the House of 87 members. For the first time, since 1977, the National Conference won more then 15 seats from the Jammu region. And it is the very same Jammu region which is totally opposed to the restoration of greater autonomy. Hence one cannot say with confidence that the National Conference won the Assembly elections since 1977 on the basis of their slogan of restoring greater autonomy.

The move to secure greater autonomy has evoked a sharp reaction in the Jammu and Ladakh regions. There is a lack of interest among the majority of people in the Kashmir valley. The demand for restoration of the pre-1953 constitutional status has been countered by a forceful demand for the trifurcation of the state. Buddhists in Ladakh and a large section of the people in the Jammu region are in favour of trifurcation of the state.

When the National Conference government released the Autonomy Committee Report in April 1999, it created mistrust between the ruling party and the opposition. The BJP and its sister organisations started dubbing the report as an exercise for reintroducing the permit system. They called it ‘’the first step towards liberation of Kashmir’’.

Despite vehement rejoinders from Farooq Abdullah who insisted that there was no question of reintroducing the permit system that existed before 1950, the opposition chanted "autonomy is secession."

This mistrust was the result of the failure on the part of the government and the Autonomy Committee to spell out in clear terms what actually it meant by restoration of pre-1953 constitutional status. The report has mentioned scores of central laws which it had recommended should be repealed.

The National Conference is for ending the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Chief Election Commission, Comptroller and Auditor-General of India in Jammu and Kashmir. It is in favour of restoration of the nomenclature of Sadr-i-Riyasat for the Governor and the Prime Minister for the Chief Minister as was the practice before 1953.

It wants all the matters and subjects to remain with the state except for the external affairs, defence, communications. Will the restoration of the pre-1953 constitutional status resolve the basic problems of the state? This question has been answered by a noted diabetologist and a columnist, Jitendra Singh. He says: "Greater autonomy to the state is not a prerequisite for the restoration of peace and normalcy which ought to be the immediate priorities for any government."

The doctor-scholar has a point when he says, "Neither is autonomy required to foil the designs to keep the Kashmir pot boiling, nor is it required to make the state administration more responsive and less corrupt."

Dr Hari Om, member, Indian Council of Historical Research, and head of the Department of History, Jammu University, is not prepared to accept the argument of the National Conference that the restoration of the pre-1953 constitutional status would strengthen the bonds of unity between the state and New Delhi, unify India and establish a people-oriented government in the state.

He says that the Autonomy Committee Report "suggests that the state’s return to the pre-1953 constitutional status will apart from strengthening and emboldening the ardent champions of Nisam-e-Mustafa, deprive the common people of civil liberties and political rights."

The reversal to pre-1953, Dr Hari Om says, would replace the Governor by a Sadr-i-Riyasat to be elected by the state legislature.This could mean "replacement of the parliamentary form of government by autocracy and oligarchy with the Centre having no power to legislate on matters other than foreign affairs, defence and communications."

The tone and tenor of the speeches delivered by the National Conference leaders, including the Chief Minister, Education Minister Mohammed Shafi and Finance Minister Abdul Rahim Rather, on the floor of the Assembly, have dispelled fears. These leaders argued that they were simply demanding restoration of a constitutional position that existed in the state till 1952. They have said that the National Conference agreed to participate in the Assembly elections in 1996 only after the then Prime Minister agreed to grant greater autonomy. "Since this assurance was not given during the 1996 Lok Sabha poll, the National Conference did not participate in the elections", Rather has said.

Dr Rekha Chowdhary, Head of the Department of Political Science, Jammu University, poses a relevant question. "Would it be feasible for the state to maintain its total autonomy if it has to approach the Centre time and again for financial assistance?"She says, "With no basis for financial autonomy, the Autonomy Committee’s recommendations for a total reversal to the pre-1953 position becomes flawed. The logic of autonomy is contradictory to the acute financial dependence of the state upon the Centre."

She says: "The National Conference, rather than making a common case for autonomy with other states, is raising the issue in an isolated manner. The report also ignores the pluralistic character of the state. It is through and through a Kashmir-centric report which undermines the political aspirations of Jammu and Ladakh, especially those related to the internal devolution of power."

A prominent human rights activist and an intellectual, Balraj Puri poses the question: "Are the present rulers in Jammu and Kashmir handicapped due to lack of adequate power that is needed to deliver the goods?" His candid view is: "With two-thirds majority in the Assembly, and no inner party democracy, Farooq Abdullah is equipped with more powers than any other Chief Minister in India enjoys. Will all the voices of secession be silenced if Dr Abdullah gets more powers?’’He is intrigued by the state government’s reluctance to grant autonomy to universities, cultural organisations and other institutions.

As for as the reaction of the separatists is concerned, the demand for autonomy has not moved them at all. The Chairman of the All Party Hurriyat Conference, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, has said: "People of the state do not attach any importance to the autonomy issue. Times are out of joint for such political gimmicks. Over 70,000 Kashmiris have not given their blood for a song. They have given blood for securing the right of self-determination. Autonomy has never been the goal of Kashmiris."

The Chairman of the Peoples’ Democratic Freedom Party, Shabir Ahmed Shah, has stated that the demand for greater autonomy raised by Farooq Abdullah is a ploy to allow him to regain his hold on the people. He believes that the autonomy issue has been raised by both the state and the central governments to "sabotage the demand for tripartite talks."

The Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA) is already up in arms against restoration of greater autonomy. The LBA chief, Tsering Samphel , is of the view that going back to the pre-1953 status would lead to "cultural aggression of Ladakh." He says that the successive state governments neglected Ladakh and its people. Under the political system that the National Conference has demanded, Ladakhis "may get a worse deal. "

K.L. Dhar, former Director, Information, is of the view that securing greater autonomy requires an exhaustive debate. "No doubt, autonomy has been the plank of the National Conference for a long time, but the present period was not opportune for the revival of the demand." Dhar says, "It is unfortunate that at a time when the combined attention of both the Central and the state governments should have been focused on exploring strategies and measures needed to counter militancy in the state, precious time and resources are being wasted on issues which can wait."

A senior leader of Panun Kashmir, an organisation of displaced Hindus, Ajay Chrungoo, is sceptical of the intentions of the National Conference which, he says, linked autonomy with Muslim subnationalism and accession. He is of the opinion that the autonomy proposal "is a ploy to fortify the communal precedence for Muslims in the state.."

He says, "The state shall fall within the territorial jurisdiction of India, but outside the federal structure of its Constitution."

Manzoor Fazili, a known Kashmiri scholar and author, has treated the demand for greater autonomy raised by the National Conference as part of its 50-year-old "politics of allurement." He says whenever the National Conference leadership has come under threat of losing either power or voters’ support, it has adopting various strategies to retain power. "Whenever the National Conference has lost power or has been on the verge of losing it, its leaders have raised ticklish issues, including plebiscite and, later, greater autonomy," he laments.

B.A. Dabla, Professor in the Department of Sociology, Kashmir University, is a support of greater autonomy provided it helps in the resolution of the Kashmir issue. He says that since the Central Government "is committed to grant greater autonomy to the state, it should fulfil its commitment". He, however, is opposed to any move that can result in the trifurcation of the state which, he says, will have a disastrous effect on the state.

Anwar Chowdhary, president of the Gujjar United Front, wants the report to be rejected by the Centre. The demand for greater autonomy "is ill-designed", he feels. He fears that Gujjars and Bakerwals would be further neglected and oppressed if the state was granted greater autonomy. Anwar is for a separate Gujjar-Duggar state comprising six districts of Jammu, Udhampur, Kathua, Poonch, Rajouri and Doda.

What is intriguing is that the National Conference has been demanding restoration of the pre-1953 constitutional status to the state since 1977. Ironically, several hundred central laws were extended to the state with the approval of the state legislature where the National Conference had an absolute majority right from 1977 onwards. At no stage did the state legislature block the application of the Central laws. Under the Article 370, which gives the state special status within the Indian Union, no central law can be extended to Jammu and Kashmir without the approval of the state legislature.

In fact the state enjoys an adequate measure of autonomy. Only a state subject can acquire immovable property in the state under the state subject laws. The state has its own flag and Constitution which one does not find in any another state of the country.

At the same time, Farooq Abdullah has the right to demand for the state what has been taken away provided he reassures the people and all those who matter that restoration of greater autonomy would ensure peace and normalcy in the state. In an autonomous state, Farooq Abdullah cannot expect to generate greater internal resources for development purposes. He has to go to Delhi with a begging-bowl whether he is the Chief Minister or the Prime Minister of the state. Even if the Governor becomes Sadr-i-Riyasat, his writ may not silence those who hold the guns.