J A M M U   &   K A S H M I R

Pak shelling in Keran, Karnah continues
SRINAGAR, Jan 8 — Unprovoked artillery and mortar shelling by Pakistani troops in the northern sector continued for the second day today, while a militant was among five persons killed in the valley since last evening.

Governor’s rule no panacea
JAMMU, Jan 8 — Is imposition of Governor’s rule the only remedy for the increased militancy violence and financial crisis in Jammu and Kashmir? This question has assumed importance now that the demand for placing the state under Governor’s rule has started gaining momentum in political quarters, including the Congress.

Pak shelling in Keran, Karnah continues

SRINAGAR, Jan 8 (UNI) — Unprovoked artillery and mortar shelling by Pakistani troops in the northern sector continued for the second day today, while a militant was among five persons killed in the valley since last evening.

A report from Baramula said artillery and mortar shelling by Pakistani troops in Keran and Karnah sectors continued for the second day today.

One soldier was killed and three others were injured last morning after some shells exploded near Balbir picket.

The report said shells fired by Pakistani troops from across the border fell either on open field or exploded mid air causing no damage.

Pakistani troops also resorted to unprovoked shelling in the Gurez sector, but no one was injured.

Sources said Indian troops also retaliated and the exchange continued for several hours in Keran and Karnah sectors. However, damages suffered by the enemy were not known.

Official sources said a militant was killed in an encounter with security forces at Udhampur this morning. Some arms and ammunition were also recovered from the slain militant.

Militants shot dead one Akram ud-Din at Malangam in Baramula district while the body of a surrendered militant Nazir Ahmad was recovered at Kupwara this morning. He was kidnapped by militants few days ago.

Militants killed one Mohammad Hayat at Kupwara early this morning while one Gujjar was shot dead by militants at Shahdhar Sharief when he was coming out from a mosque after offering prayers.

Governor’s rule no panacea
From M.L. Kak
Tribune News Service

JAMMU, Jan 8 — Is imposition of Governor’s rule the only remedy for the increased militancy violence and financial crisis in Jammu and Kashmir ?

This question has assumed importance now that the demand for placing the state under Governor’s rule has started gaining momentum in political quarters, including the Congress.

As per the state constitution the Governor can assume all the executive and legislative functions if he finds there is a constitutional breakdown, internal emergency or an external theatre. Governor’s rule can also be imposed if the ruling party has lost its majority in the state Assembly.

The ruling National Conference has a two-third majority in the state Assembly and despite dissidence, there is no immediate political threat to the Farooq-led Government. Nor is there a constitutional breakdown. As far as the security scenario is concerned the ebb and flow in militancy related incidents is not very different from what it was two/three years ago with the difference that militants have now started targeting security pickets more often.

What has, however, led the demand for imposition of Governor’s rule is a marked drift in the political situation alongside the grim fiscal scenario.

Government employees have been on strike for the past 18 days against non-payment of two instalments of DA and arrears. There has been no administrative action against striking hospital employees, even though hospitals have started stinking and the wards are vacant. The state has never experienced such prolonged power cuts, ranging between nine hours to 11 hours in living memory.

However, there have been bigger strikes during Governor’s rule, one of which lasted 73 days. Thus Governor rule alone is hardly a panacea. But many believe Governor’s rule may ease the fiscal crisis as the state would save several crores on salaries and perks of ministers. Under Governor’s rule there would be not more than two to three advisers to run the state administration.

Opponents of Governor’s rule, however, argue that if containing militancy alone is the determining criteria security forces may not get more teeth under Governor’s rule than they have at present.

Thus if the troops have not been able to contain infiltration or arms smuggling at present they may not be able to do so with a Governor at the helm of affairs either. The plan for counterinsurgency operations will still be prepared in New Delhi whoever is in power at the centre and such policies are implemented regardless of the approval of the Chief Minister.

Those who oppose central rule argue that state’s six years experience between 1990 and 1996 under Governor’s rule increased alienation as interaction between the ruler and the ruled was minimal. Successive Governors, barring Mr Jagmohan, and their advisers, were inaccessible to the public allowing bureaucrats a free run.

“You have a civil face to the Government in Jammu and Kashmir, and it has diluted the Pak campaign against India” said one professor in Kashmir University. He said “India has been in the forefront of the forces opposed to a military take-over in Pakistan. Thus, with what face will New Delhi face the world if Jammu and Kashmir is placed under central rule.”

A snap survey by this correspondent revealed that the same people who were fed up with the six-year spell of central rule are “fed up with the elected Government” now and want change. What is needed are immediate steps to make the state government more responsive to the people’s problems, transparent and accountable — so that the ruling party leaders do not raise demands of extraneous nature.

The 18-year political career of Dr Farooq Abdullah has revealed that out of power he has great mischief potential, which he demonstrated in 1990 when he resigned in protest against appointment of Mr Jagmohan as Governor of Jammu and Kashmir. But there is no denying that financial legacy apart Dr Abdullah inherited a better security environment when he resumed power in October 1996 and it was because of government’s mistakes that militants now enjoy the upper hand.

But even his known critics are of the opinion that if Dr Abdullah must go his government should fall under the weight of its misdeeds rather than central intervention, so that it does not regain the peoples’ sympathy, if not outright support.