PROF HARI OM
Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India on 26th October, 1947. Since then, the State has been witnessing unrest. The Kashmiri Muslim leadership has been accusing New Delhi of diluting the Valley’s distinct identity, eroding the State’s special status, and surreptitiously bringing the State under the ambit certain of the Constitution of India. The Kashmiri leadership is divided into six groups variously demanding self-rule, greater autonomy, independence, merger with Pakistan, implementation of the 1975 Indira Gandhi-Sheikh Abdullah Accord and implementation of Pervez Musharraf’s four-point formula as a first step.
The ruling Peoples Democratic Party vouches for self-rule: Limited accession with India, India-Pakistan joint-control over Jammu and Kashmir, demilitarisation, porous borders and irrelevant Line of Control, Islamic banking and dual currency. The National Conference has been demanding greater autonomy, bordering on virtual sovereignty. It wants restoration of the system as was in effect in the State under the Jammu and Kashmir Constitutional Act of 1939. Under this archaic Act, the ruling elite exercised unbridled and absolute judicial, legislative and executive powers, including the power to interpret the Constitution. It, in addition, openly supports Hurriyat Conference, defends stone-throwers and their attacks on the Army and paramilitary forces and says they are not sacrificing their lives for becoming MPs or MLAs, but for their nation.
The Congress has been insisting on the implementation of the 1975 accord that empowers the valley’s ruling elite to review Central laws and seek withdrawal of laws considered injurious to Kashmir. The Congress’ insistence on the 1975 Indira Gandhi-Sheikh Abdullah Accord despite the fact that it was implemented in 1975 itself and Sheikh Abdullah became Chief Minister under this very accord. When he became Chief Minister, his party didn’t have single lawmaker either in the Legislative Assembly or in the Legislative Council. He himself was not an MLA. The Congress, which had absolute majority in both the Houses, abdicated power in favour of Sheikh Abdullah.
Separatists like Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Shabir Shah want the merger of the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir with Pakistan, saying the State is an unfinished agenda of Partition, and being a Muslim-majority State, its fate has to be linked with the Islamic State of Pakistan. Separatists like Yasin Malik want independence of the State from both India and Pakistan and, at the same time, consider Islamabad a stakeholder in Jammu and Kashmir.
Another group of secessionists led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, head priest of Jamia Masjid, Srinagar, is all for Pakistan, but says that it would be desirable of New Delhi and Islamabad to adopt the Musharraf formula -India-Pakistan joint-control, self-governance, demilitarisation and soft borders – as the starting point. These roads, though divergent, lead to the same destination: Separation of Jammu and Kashmir from India and its conversion into a theocratic State.
All the Kashmir-based six groups, which are led by the Sunni leadership, do not consider Jammu and Kashmir a settled issue. The upshot of arguments has been that they could not have any truck with Hindu India and have no faith in the Indian constitutional and political structure. They believe there is only one way in which the unrest in the Valley can be ended and that is by empowering Kashmiri Muslims to determine their own fate, outside the Indian framework. The worst part of their approach is that they also want to submerge the people of Jammu and Ladakh under the rising tide of Kashmiri Muslim sub-nationalism and impose their will on all the non-Kashmiri population living outside the Valley. Non-Muslims constitute nearly 40 per cent of the State’s population and occupy over 88 per cent of the State’s land area.
On the other hand, Jammu has been witnessing another kind of unrest. Jammu people have been fighting tooth and nail Kashmiri Muslim sub-nationalism and appealing to the Government of India to implement political reforms that segregate them from Kashmir and empowers them to shape and control their political and economic future within India. Their battle-cry all along has been the State’s merger with India, application of the Constitution of India minus Article 370, and an end to the valley’s domination over Jammu.
Jammu residents have been demanding a definite political instrument, invested with legislative, executive and financial powers, as also an instrument that enables them to control the land, and address all the issues pertaining to Jammu. Complete control over land is imperative to check the dubious efforts of those in the Valley who have been meticulously changing the demographic profile of Jammu. Jammu residents believe there are elements in the establishment who are hand-in-glove with separatists in the valley, whose single-point agenda has been to create an impression that the entire population of Jammu and Kashmir is against Indian presence in the State.
The belief appears to be well-founded when considered in the light of the numerous colonies that have come up around Jammu city and elsewhere in the region since 1994, when Pakistan suffered a humiliating defeat at Geneva, and the European Union countered the Pakistani view by saying that the entire non-Sunni population in the State was against the secessionist movement in the Valley.
The story of Ladakh has been no different. It, like Jammu, has been longing for separation from Kashmir since 1947 with its leadership consistently saying that it no power can force its people to accept Kashmiri domination and Kashmiri ideology. Ladakh already has an autonomous hill development council and is now striving for Union Territory status. Both the BJP and the Congress back this demand.
The story of Jammu and Kashmir post-1947 has been one of inter-regional bitterness, animosity and rancour. Jammu and Ladakh, which constitute over 88 per cent of the State’s land area and house more than half of the State’s population, have opposed Kashmiri politics and are crying for justice. On the other hand, Kashmiri leaders describe Jammu and Ladakh as millstones around their neck.
New Delhi must create a framework that enables Jammu and Ladakh to integrate fully with India while its trouble-shooters and conflict-managers can deal exclusively with the separatist and terrorist-infested Kashmir. Even otherwise, New Delhi has no other alternative considering the fact that the contradictions in the political perceptions of the people of Jammu/Ladakh and Kashmir are irreconcilable. Indeed, division of the state is imperative in the larger national interest. Division will enable New Delhi to start parleys with Kashmiri leaders of all shades of opinion, including the internally-displaced Kashmiri Hindus, to find what could satisfy them and their respective constituencies. Situation in Kashmir is highly dangerous and the sooner New Delhi reorganises the State on regional lines, the better.
