KASHMIR: The autonomy issue and the need for caution
by R.Upadhyay
There has been a spate of analysis on the demand of Farooq government for
autonomy and most of them have condemned the NC resolution. The government was aware that
the Farooq government was coming up with an autonomy resolution and yet when it appeared,
within a short time the reaction swung from one of caution to outright rejection and again
some readiness to discuss the issue. The National Conference is a lawfully elected
government and their demands however outrageous it may be, should be discussed and not
rejected outright. The views expressed here are author's own. Director
There could be a view that the autonomy resolution passed
by Jammu and Kashmir Assembly on June 26 is a political move on the part of the State
leadership to misguide the people and conceal their failure in governance. As a
contentious and a nationally sensitive problem it has raised a host of other issues.
History:
Going back to the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari
Singh on October 27,1947, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the then political representative of
the people of Kashmir said:-
"We the people of Jammu and Kashmir have thrown our lot with
the Indian people not in the heat of passion or moment of despair, but by deliberate
choice. The union of our people has been fused by a community of ideas and common
sufferings in the cause of freedom." ( Kashmir Accord 1975 G.R.Najar page 29 )
This statement no doubt was a manifestation of the heart and mind
of the people then in the State. We need not go into the question why the "community
of ideas" got diluted and why Sheikh Abdullah progressively reneged on his commitment
and went to the extent of demanding the right of self determination for Kashmiris.
Suffice it to say that it raises doubts whether the National
Conference had the sole aim of abolishing the hereditary serfdom of Maharaja Hari Singh
rather than seamless integration with the rest of India at the time of signing the
accession. Is it that the hidden agenda of the National Conference is now manifesting in
different forms like demand for greater autonomy and pre-1953 status?
The Indian Instrument of Accession was signed under the provision
of Indian Independence Act 1947, which conferred on the rulers of princely states absolute
power to accede to either of the dominions (India or Pakistan) or remain independent. The
Act did not contain any provision for conditional accession. Thus, Kashmir became a
permanent and integral part of India the day Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession.
It still remains a mystery as to what factors led the then
political leadership in India to refer the issue to the UNO on January 1,1948, when
Pakistan had not withdrawn its army from its forcible occupation of one third of Kashmir
territory. This political blunder of Indian leadership encouraged Sheikh Abdullah to
ensure that Kashmir does not integrate emotionally with the rest of India. It was also
amazing that on January 1, 1949, Pandit Nehru, who was not a constitutionally elected
Prime Minister on that date suggested a Plebiscite for Kashmir. This was contrary to the
spirit of accession.
The members of the Drafting Committee of Indian Constitution
particularly Dr. B.R.Ambedkar had reportedly rejected the demand of Sheikh Abdullah for
special provisions in the Constitution in respect of Kashmir. But how one managed to get
Article 370 introduced on October 17, 1949 and also get it adopted by the Constituent
Assembly the same day, is again a mystery.
During the period between the arrest of Sheikh Abdullah and his
re-enthronement as Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir following Parthsarathi-Beg Accord
popularly known as Indira-Sheikh Accord of 1975 much water had flown. The extension of the
provisions of Indian Constitution through a number of presidential and constitutional
orders during the period diluted most of the pre-1953 special provisions in the state. The
Simla Agreement signed between India and Pakistan made it a political reality. After 1975
Kashmir Accord, there was no demand for pre-1953 status for Kashmir even by Sheikh
Abdullah.
The present demand of the National Conference is not being
supported by any political party in India. The damage caused by NC has however, given a
further fillip to Pakistani propaganda at international levels.
Response of RSS:
Contrary to the ideological commitment of the BJP and its parent
organisation the RSS to the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, the initial
cool reaction of Union Home Minister L.K.Advani and the statement of the Prime Minister
A.B.Vajpayee defending that the resolution was within the ambit of Indian constitution
enraged the RSS leadership.
K.S.Sudarshan the chief of the RSS responded with a strong
statement and went to the extent of demanding dismissal of Farooq Abdullah Government and
imposition of president’s rule in the State. The tone and tenor of the top
organisational leaders of the BJP were also very aggressive. Realising the gravity of the
situation, the Union Cabinet summarily rejected the Autonomy resolution of the J&K
assembly.
Ground Reality:
The ground reality is that no political party or government in
power can dare to initiate any dialogue for reviving pre-1953 status of Kashmir. Dr.
Abdullah should have consulted the old records before making such a demand in the autonomy
resolution passed by J&K Assembly. His father, while negotiating with Indira Gandhi in
1974 also tried to play the same political game and had reportedly said, " Let us
start from where I left in 1953." The reply of Indira Gandhi should be preserved as a
historical record. She said, " Sheikh Saheb, while I respect your sentiments, I must
tell you that the hands of the clock cannot be turned back."
The natural consequence of the autonomy resolution with such a
demand had to be therefore, a quick rejection by the Union Cabinet. But rejection by
itself cannot and will not be the end of the matter. The result has been demands of
greater autonomy by some of the States.
The National Conference being an ally of the NDA government has
an equal responsibility to ensure that its action does not cause any embarrassment to the
latter. The heat generated has cooled somewhat following the participation of the Prime
Minister Vajpayee and Home Minister Advani in the funeral of the mother of the Chief
Minister, Dr.Abdullah. Vajapayee’s readiness to discuss the issue with Farooq Abdulla
is a forward step. But can the issue and the extent of autonomy be categorically spelled
out and finalised when the government on the other hand has shown its readiness to discuss
with Hurriyat also?
The former Governor of J&K and presently Urban Development
Minister in Union Cabinet Jagmohan has pointed out that: - " The fundamental point to
note is the distinction between the autonomy that leads to efficiency in administration,
speed in development and fuller realisation of the creative potential of a community, and
autonomy that breeds separatism, subversion and secession." (Abdullah’s Autonomy
is unworkable, untenable and dangerous - Times of India dated July 11’2000)
Conclusion:
In the backdrop of the prevailing political situation in Kashmir,
any dialogue can be fruitful if it is initiated for the overall development of the state
and emotional integration of the Kashmiri people with rest of India. The purpose of this
paper is not to dig out history but to remind the authorities that the history of 1952
Delhi Agreement between Sheikh Abdullah and the then Prime Minister Pandit Nehru is not
repeated. The then Delhi- Agreement was more an appeasement than an attempt for any
permanent solution. It is hoped that the proposed dialogue between Vajpayee and
Dr.Abdullah does not make the same mistake.
16-7-2000
(e-mail ramashray60@yahoo.com)
