The approval by the State cabinet of the two reports on autonomy for the entire state within Indian Union and for the regions within the state, belatedly submitted by the two panels exclusively composed of members from the ruling National Conference after two and a half years' labour, has snowballed into an expected major controversy.
These have generated lot of heat, particularly in Jammu, creating a climate in which no dispassionate, rational and objective analysis is possible. Kashmir valley, where vast majority favours the ongoing struggle for azadi, has reacted to these reports with sullen silence and an attitude of least concern. These have been dismissed as an "eye wash" and unrelated to any realistic and lasting solution to the prolonged Kashmir impasse. 'No solution under the Constitution of India' has been the refrain of a few comments made by the secessionist leaders.
In Jammu and Ladakh the two reports have been either dubbed as a political gimmick of the ruling NC or a conspiracy to weaken, even snap, the State's links with India and to break the regional entities of the distinct regions of Jammu and Ladakh through communal division.
The very motive and credentials of the National Conference in preparing, releasing and approving these reports, is questionable. The ruling party's objective too is considered suspect.
Two Autonomy Committees
Both the committees were constituted in October 1996 by the State Government in a most arbitrary and undemocratic manner, exclusively comprised of the National Conference members' the state autonomy committee having only cabinet ministers as its members. To give them a semblance of being non-partisan, two well-known supporters of the ruling establishment then, Dr Karan Singh and Balraj Puri, were roped in, former as the chairman of the State panel and the latter as President of the regional committee with Dr Farooq Abdullah himself as its titular chairman.
Dr Karan Singh resigned as chairman of the state committee in October 1997 "on personal grounds" when he was drifting towards the Congress and Mr Puri, having been found inconvenient in view of his strong championship of the regional identities of Jammu and Ladakh, was unceremoniously and disgracefully removed "with retrospective effect." Mr Puri has released his own draft of the committee's report, which was not signed by the other members belonging to the NC.
Though appointed by the government, for all practical purposes, these were the ruling party committees and lack any representative character, particularly in view of the fact that the NC had returned to power through a thoroughly rigged and contrived election with the full backing of New Delhi including that of the Indian Election Commission.
Though initially appointed for six months, the terms of these committees were repeatedly extended, and it took them over two and a half years to submit their reports. The delay and timing of approving these reports appear to be deliberate.
Dr Farooq Abdullah was not interested in having any confrontation with New Delhi as long as he enjoyed its unqualified support. Once he realised that the ground was slipping under his feet and his days in power were numbered, both in view of his abject failure on all fronts, causing total disenchantment of both the people of the State and those at the helm in New Delhi, he cleverly opened Pandora's box and stirred the hornet's nest.
If one goes by the past tactics of the NC rulers, the objective of releasing these reports at this juncture, when his government is facing a serious financial, administrative and political crisis, is to throw the ball in the government of India's court to increase his bargaining power for staying back in power.
The reports of the two committees cannot be viewed in isolation, and the conduct of the ruling party in constituting two separate panels for autonomy raises doubts about its motives and bonafides. Unfortunately, while angrily reacting against the reports of the State autonomy committee, the critics of Dr Abdullah in Jammu and other parts of the country have ignored the dangerous potentials of the report on regional autonomy and somewhat mischievous intents of the ruling party.
Regional Identities
The report tampers with the distinct and well-defined historical, political and administrative entities of three regions. It not only undermines the entities of these regions but also recommends trifurcation of the multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and pluralistic Jammu region and bifurcation of the Ladakh region on purely communal lines.
Both the National Conference and its ally at the Centre, BJP, along with the Congress have consistently tried to create communal polarisation in Jammu and Ladakh for their narrow partisan political objectives. This has paid them dividends in keeping their respective Muslim and Hindu constituencies intact and frustrating the efforts of any other secular democratic outfit to occupy the vacant opposition space. The report of the regional panel adequately fits into this pattern as it will only lead to further accentuating communal divide and perpetuating communal polarisation.
The demand for autonomy which means self-rule, azadi or right of self-determination (unfettered or limited) is indeed unexceptional. Such a genuine autonomy for federating units in any federal setup can only strengthen the federation while providing an equitable sense of belonging and participation to the federated units and other tiers at different levels. Going by the past conduct of the NC, it is doubtful that it is motivated by such considerations while pressing for its demand.
The most pertinent question is: autonomy for whom and for what purpose? Autonomy for a manipulative clique to usurp absolute power, centralise authority, function in an arbitrary and authoritarian manner, exploit the people, deny them of their democratic rights, rig elections after elections to return to power, loot and plunder the state exchequer, resort to unabashed corruption without any system of checks and balances, destroy every democratic institution and centralise power?
Precisely this is what the ruling cliques in Jammu and Kashmir have done, whether they enjoyed full autonomy from 1947 to 1953 or had eroded autonomy after August 1953. The benefits of autonomy or Indian democracy have never reached the people at any level, particularly so at the grassroots level.
Who wants autonomy in the present context and in this form when there is no political instrumentality that empowers the people, particularly when the State Constitution does not provide guarantees for the fundamental rights of the people, a decentralised set up and independence and impartiality of various democratic institutions like judiciary, public service commission, comptroller and auditor general, ombudsman or commission and provisions for devolution of power-political, administrative and financial at various levels right at the bottom.
Kashmiri Muslims and a sizeable section of population in parts of Jammu region have been struggling for azadi and are interested in a "realistic and lasting solution" of the prolonged Kashmir problem in accordance with the wishes of the people. They are for the right of self-determination and not autonomy within Indian framework. In their view, an independent united, secular, democratic, and federal Jammu and Kashmir is the only realistic solution to the Kashmir problem, which can satisfy their political urges and aspirations.
On the other extreme are a large number of Hindus who are opposed to the concept of greater autonomy and favour closer integration of the State with India. Believing, though erroneously, that the curtailment of Kashmir's autonomy is the answer to their sense of deprivation, BJP, for instance, has been championing the cause of closer integration to the extent of abrogation of Article 370 that provides special status to Jammu and Kashmir.
Others want the creation of harmonious relationship between Kashmir and New Delhi on the one hand and between Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh on the other and for that purpose have been demanding a truly democratic decentralised pattern which could provide equitable sense of participation and belonging to every region and areas within the region of the State. They do not grudge greater autonomy for the state, provided such a mechanism is evolved through constitutional provisions.
Purpose of Autonomy
To my mind, the broad multi-purpose criteria for autonomy could be as under:
i. It satisfies genuine political urges and aspirations of the people in all regions and areas within regions of the state.
ii. It manages to reconcile divergent political aspirations of the people in this multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-lingual state which is like mini-India.
iii. It strengthens state's unity and integrity and checks fissiparous tendencies.
iv. It creates inter-communal and inter-regional harmonious relationship, strengthens communal harmony and secular, liberal and democratic values.
v. It finds an answer to centre-state and inter-regional tensions with a thin dividing line between regional and communal aspirations.
vi. It eliminates the alienation of Kashmiris from the Indian mainstream and surmounts the rising walls of suspicion and mistrust between different regions.
vii. Above all it achieves the desired objective of empowerment of the people, genuine self-rule at various levels through a process of democratic decentralisation in accordance with the spirit of federalism. (Self-rule denotes democratic rule of the people and genuine empowerment of the people is a key to the regeneration process and broadening of democratic polity.)
Do the reports of the two autonomy committees satisfy these rational, realistic and scientific critera? Regrettably the answer will be in negative.
These fail to satisfy the political urges and aspirations of the people at large, weaken rather than strengthen the state's unity and integrity, strengthen and perpetuate communal polarisation, fail to find an answer to Centre-state or inter-regional tensions, increase rather than eliminate Kashmiris alienation and above all do not achieve the desired objective of people's empowerment.
Autonomy in the present context does not present a solution to the prolonged Kashmir impasse unless any such arrangement is evolved on the basis of consensus through a process of dialogue with diverse sections of the people to reconcile the divergent political perceptions. Not to speak of bringing the alienated section into the mainstream, the manner in which the reports have been prepared and released, the exercise has unleashed various forces, setting in motion a chain reaction.
NC’s Credentials on Autonomy
The very credentials of the National Conference on the question of restoration of autonomy are not above board.
Dr Farooq Abdullah says that restoration of the eroded state autonomy to the pre-'53 level and granting regional autonomy were his party's commitment, made in its election manifesto which he wants to fulfill. He had made many other commitments too in his party's election manifesto. How many of them has he been able to honour?
Apart from the fact that the NC has a dubious record of violating its own promises and commitments, it also has the dubious distinction of shifting its stance to suit its political convenience and satisfy its lust for absolute power. The NC boycotted the elections to Lok Sabha in 1996 saying that it will not participate in any electoral exercise until the pre-'53 constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir was restored.
In fact, that time he and his party, who had gone into hibernation, feared both the gun and the wrath of the people, whom they had let down and totally alienated. Same Farooq and his party jumped into the election fray for assembly elections held only a few months later in October, even though their condition for participating in election had not been fulfilled.
The reason for this somersault is not far to seek. The powers that be in New Delhi had fully assured him that they are interested in his return to power and this objective will be achieved by hook or crook. The elections in Kashmir were rigged once again to install a puppet government of New Delhi, which could act as its instrument to crush the popular struggle with the use of even more brutal force. Whatever his other failures, Dr Abdullah admirably performed this task to New Delhi's satisfaction. In the process, he further alienated the people.
If Dr Abdullah was really interested in the restoration of autonomy, then what prevented him from bringing a resolution to that effect before the legislature and get it passed with more than two third majority at his command. Obviously, that did not suit him at that time, and he set up a committee for that purpose only to fool the people and mark time till he felt that his power is threatened. The present was the appropriate time to rake up this issue to kill several birds with one stone. He thwarted any move to initiate a process of dialogue with alienated sections to find a solution to the Kashmir problem.
He befooled his supporters by presenting them the olive branch of autonomy. He tried, though vainly, to divert the people's attention from his abject failure to deliver the goods and from serious political and financial crisis of his making. He tried to consolidate his constituency by unleashing all kinds of divisive forces and stirring a fierce controversy with chain reaction through his twin autonomy reports.
Having been denied unlimited funds to enable him to tide over the serious financial crunch he tried to increase his bargaining power in his polemics with New Delhi. He fully knows that the present dispensation in power in New Delhi is opposed to any demand for restoration of state's autonomy with the dominant partner, BJP, committed to do away with special position of the state by abrogating Article 370. If he still has thrown his snowball in New Delhi court he has a definite design to do so. It is a "touch-me-not signal" to powers that be with a warning that if pushed to the wall, he can hit back by harping on the autonomy slogan.
Such antics have paid dividends in the past, and he has only followed the traditions set by his illustrious father.
Following a ‘Tradition’
Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, undoubtedly the tallest of all Kashmiri leaders whose contribution for the State's freedom from autocracy cannot be undermined, had mastered the art of shifting his stance to suit his political convenience.
After he was undemocratically deposed and arrested in a New Delhi-staged coup in August 1953 Sheikh Saheb raised the slogan of right of self-determination to decide the future of Jammu and Kashmir, reminding New Delhi of its commitment to get the accession ratified by the people through a referendum.
For 22 long years, he harped on his demand for plebiscite and, having failed to achieve his objective, he returned to power based on status-quo under what is known as Indira-Sheikh Accord arrived at after protracted talks between G. Parthasarthy and Mirza Afzal Beg. The only concession was that he would review the laws made applicable to the state after his arrest and suggest which of these needed to be repealed.
The great Sheikh returned to power with the same Congress leaders whom he had been contemptuously calling as "the worms of the gutter". He became the leader of the same legislature whose very validity and representative character he had challenged. He took oath under the same Constitution which he had described as a fraud on the people. He contended that after his arrest and those of his colleagues, the Constituent Assembly had lost its validity and representative character.
For eight long years, he remained in power; he and his party did not suggest a single law to be scrapped by New Delhi, though it goes to his credit that he did set up two panels for this purpose. Perhaps he too was waiting for an opportune time to raise this issue.
Dr Farooq Abdullah succeeded his illustrious father in a true manner of dynastic succession in September 1982 and remained in power till 1990 with two brief interruptions solely or in alliance with the Congress. But for all these seven years he failed to take any steps for the restoration of state's autonomy, though he did occasionally raise this issue whenever he felt his power is threatened.
In fact during this period the Centre took more steps for closer integration of the state, even interfering and guiding in its internal affairs. Even during his present tenure, Dr Abdullah has lost more authority to New Delhi with even law and order primarily becoming Centre's responsibility and central agencies having stronger foothold in the state. There has been further erosion of autonomy, if not through constitutional measures at least by administrative orders and actions.
Politically he has become an ally of that alliance whose dominant party, BJP, is committed to further erode the state's autonomy by bringing it at par with other states. That exposes the National Conference leadership's genuine commitment for autonomy.
Who’s Responsible for Autonomy Erosion?
Yet another question that seems to be pertinent is: who is responsible for the erosion of the state's autonomy. The successive governments in New Delhi, mainly the Congress regimes, are no doubt the real culprits.
Kashmir's accession to India was both limited and conditional. I need not go into the circumstances leading to the signing of the Instrument of Accession. But the fact remains that the accession was limited only to three subjects of defence, foreign affairs and communications while in other matters state enjoyed its sovereignty, as enunciated by late Maharaja Hari Singh in his letter accompanying the Instrument of Accession to Lord Mountbatten. The government of India headed by Nehru had made categorical commitment that i) the state will enjoy full autonomy in respect of all other matters not ceded to the Union and ii) the final decision of State's future will be decided through a plebiscite after peace returned to the State. One need not go into the reasons for not holding plebiscite or the legal and constitutional aspect of the accession. But one thing is clear that this accession was limited and ascertaining the wishes of people through a plebiscite was New Delhi's commitment made, not to Pakistan or any other power, but to the people of Kashmir. That commitment has not been honoured.
Similarly, the other commitment of preserving state's autonomy in all matters except defence, foreign affairs, and communications, has been honoured in breach by New Delhi, gradually eroding the state's autonomy step by step through overt and covert means. This was also the NC commitment to the people. How far the party has fulfilled this commitment need not be explained.
The contribution of the NC leadership in facilitating the erosion of autonomy and alienation of the people on that account is also not insignificant. The autonomy was used not to protect the democratic rights of the people, decentralise power for the people's empowerment, but to usurp absolute power by a coterie. If autonomy, like democracy, is not an abstract concept but a living reality then in any autonomous polity the democracy should strengthen the basic federal principle of reconciling regional autonomies and carrying forward this process to the lowest level.
The autonomy granted to the state was misued to establish an authoritarian coterie rule, destroy every democratic institution, rig elections, stifle every voice of dissent to the extent of pushing ruling party detractors to the other side of the cease-fire line and consolidating power through draconian laws, unleasing the worst kind of repression.
Had a better system of democracy been created by building more credible judicial system and providing other checks and balances, setting up a really independent election commission and other such institutions, there was no reason for the people of the State not to welcome this kind of arrangement. But that was not done. The election held for the State's Constitution Assembly was the first rigged election in the country with the NC manipulating to get all of its 75 members elected to it, 73 of them unopposed.
Who created doubts about the advantages of autonomous status?
Autonomy is Democratic Decentralisation
If the objective of autonomy is democratic decentralisation, as Dr Abdullah claims, then why is it that for the last several decades even the elections to Panchayats and local bodies have not been held in the State? Even the democratic character of cooperative institutions was destroyed.
Clearly the ruling NC wants autonomy not for strengthening democratic institutions or for empowerment of the people but for enjoying absolute power.
That state's eroded autonomy needs to be restored, provided its benefits reach the people at grassroot levels through various autonomous tiers, is beyond question.
I, for one, fully support the people's right of self-determination, which is a democratic right. I also believe that a united independent, federal, secular and democratic Jammu and Kashmir with full autonomy to all its regions and lower units is the ideal solution to the Kashmir problem. This problem has been a cause and consequence of the prolonged conflict between India and Pakistan. An independent Kashmir can act as a bridge between the two neigbouring countries. But no such solution can be imposed on the people having divergent aspirations and diverse perceptions. A dialogue with the cross-section of people to evolve the future set-up for the state is the only way to arrive at a consensual solution.
In the case of restoration of state's autonomy or evolution of a system of autonomy at the regional and lower level, no solution can be imposed on the people. For this purpose, a dialogue with cross sections and diverse elements is the prerequisite for evolving a formula based on consensus. This is the fundamental flaw in the reports of the two autonomy committees.
I do not think that the objections about restoration of the autonomy are valid on the ground that this will do away with the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Central Election Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General or the extension of central services to the state. The extension of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has not helped the common man much in getting cheap and expeditious justice. It has neither ensured fundamental rights to the people nor has it put an end to the arbitrariness of the administration and the protection of people's civil liberties. Similarly, even after the extension of the jurisdiction of the Central Election Commission, there has been no end to the rigging of elections in Jammu and Kashmir.
The institution of CAG has not helped in any way to prevent large-scale corruption, misuse of funds, or other financial irregularities in the state. The extension of central services has proved a bane rather than boon for the people, with administrative efficiency, honesty, transparency and accountability reaching their lowest ebbs. The administration has reached beyond the people and the necessary rapport has been virtually snapped.
What is more important is to have a better and more independent judicial system, a more impartial and transparent Election Commission, a more credible Public Service Commission and building of other similar democratic institutions. What is needed is a new constitution for the state to provide for democratic institutions, safeguards, and a truly federal setup with full powers to democratic institutions at various levels.
Coming to the report of the Regional Autonomy Committee, it must be pointed out that any move to divide the regions or erode their identities is fraught with grave consequences. The committee has mentioned the commitment of the ruling party for regional autonomy but nowhere the party has made a commitment for not destroying the very identity of the distinct regions of the state. Sheikh Abdullah had made this commitment at the time of signing of the 1952 Accord and reiterated it at the People's Convention convened by him in 1966, which prepared a blueprint for a five-tier setup with genuine autonomy, taking three distinct regions and districts, blocks and Panchayats as the other tiers of this federal system.
For any meaningful democratic decentralised setup, power should flow from below to the top and not vice versa. Such a system will not make any impact unless there is total decentralisation of power, delegation of authority, and adequate resources. For the implementation of the program, the common people should be the active agents in the making and unmaking of decisions for the remaking of their own future, rather than the objects of decision-making done by others in the closed doors of the Secretariat.
This indeed is the essence of autonomy.
(Ved Bhasin was the Founding Editor of the Kashmir Times. This write-up is being published on his 10th death anniversary)
Have you liked the news article?