Opinion leaders urge Modi to hive off Jammu from Kashmir & give it statehood, reject idea of statehood to Kashmir

Prof Hari Om
The 22 targeted killings (of Kashmiri Hindus, Jammu Dogras and non-J&K residents) in Kashmir after January 01, 2022 by Islamist terrorists have triggered a serious debate on the reform scheme introduced by the Narendra Modi Government on August 5-6, 2019. On the eventful August 5-6, the Modi Government had read down seditious Article 370, abrogated discriminatory Article 35A and bifurcated erstwhile state of J&K into UT of J&K and UT of Ladakh. Some sophisticated and unbiased opinion leaders have suggested that the gruesome murders of innocents in Kashmir and the kind of leadership that we have in Kashmir ‘should prompt a rethink on the government’s post-article 370 policy of treating Jammu and Kashmir as one political unit’ and ‘the question of giving back statehood to Kashmir should be dismissed right away’. Two such opinion leaders are R Jagannathan and Tushar Gupta. It would be only desirable to quote verbatim some relevant portions from what they opined to put things in perspective and draw the attention of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah to their objective, rational and national suggestions calculating to defeating the violent jihad in Kashmir. First, R Jagnathan’s suggestions: He, inter-alia, has said, “The mistake made at the time of J&K’s bifurcation in 2019 was the excessive concern over pandering to Muslim sensitivities in the valley rather than the Hindus in Jammu. The truth is simple: as long as Jammu is treated as an appendage and second to Kashmiri interests, India’s strongest backers in J&K will lose out. Hindu interests are being short-changed in order to maintain a dubious narrative of secular Kashmir. The only remedy is another bifurcation, and early statehood for Jammu, with Kashmir being given its promised statehood only after violence abates. As long as Muslims in Kashmir are given the hope that they will continue to dominate undivided J&K by virtue of their demographic advantage – something that the current delimitation exercise, which gives Jammu six more seats against Kashmir’s one does not fully address – they have no reason to adjust to new realities. Even though Jammu gets 43 seats against Kashmir’s 47 post-delimitation, it is a fair bet that elements in Jammu will team up with the valley’s majority to defeat Jammu’s aspirations.
Not just this, Jagannathan has further opined, “The reality is that while Hindus have practically been eliminated from the valley, which is nearly 97 per cent Muslim, in Jammu the religious demography is 65 per cent Hindu, 31 per cent Muslim and 4 per cent Sikh. But there are thousands of Rohingya Muslims also staying in Jammu, and over time, if they have no chance of returning to Myanmar (Supreme Court stayed their deportation last year), they will grow roots there and impact even Jammu’s Hindu-Sikh demography adversely at some point of time”. The upshot of his whole formulation is, “The point is this: if we assume that Muslims will stay more loyal to religion than region (which is what led to partition in 1947), the Hindu majority in Jammu is simply not good enough as long as it remains a part of a single state called J&K. The way forward is thus clear. First, bifurcate Jammu & Kashmir and give the Pandits (read Kashmiri Hindu refugees) a permanent residence in Jammu. Those who choose to remain in the valley must be given full protection against targeted killings. Second, Jammu must be given immediate statehood, and the valley told that statehood will follow once peace is restored. A carrot-and-stick approach to Kashmiri statehood is vital to send this message. A unified J&K is not going to work. J must be separated from K. This will allow the armed forces and special, well-armed and motivated Kashmiri policemen to hermetically seal the Valley, and finish their job as soon as possible”.
As for Tushar Gupta, another expert on J&K affairs, he, like Jagannathan, has, among other things, said, “The question of giving back statehood to Kashmir should be dismissed right away, at least for another ten years. Kashmir, not Jammu, is not ready to be a state. The political class in Kashmir cannot be trusted to run the State affairs, not with their unapologetic stance towards terrorism and their perpetual inclination towards having a separate identity that is closer to Pakistan than India. Further, the decision to prolong the governor’s rule in Kashmir should act as a deterrent for the political class, including three former chief ministers, that advocates an anti-India agenda. They either toe the national line or the Centre must reduce them to sorry figures in the bloodied pages of history. Even amongst the young majority population, the traditional political class is losing popularity. The government must capitalise on this sentiment”.
And just like Jagannathan, Tushar Gupta, too, has urged Modi Government to separate Jammu from Kashmir and grant Jammu full state status. What actually has he suggested? He has suggested, “It is high time that the identity of Jammu is separated from Kashmir. Since 1947, Jammu has been the distant second priority for policymakers in the centre. Going forward, the political, economic, infrastructural, social, and cultural agenda for Jammu must be distinct from Kashmir. With its own state assembly, the Hindu majority must be allowed to formulate new laws pertaining to land ownership, domicile, etc. to begin with”. Tushar Gupta has taken on those who senselessly oppose further reorganisation of J&K on the ground that such a division will only help Pakistan achieve its age-old objective: Merger of Kashmir with Pakistan. “The one argument against statehood for Jammu is that it will reduce Kashmir, a union territory, to a border state with a constant threat of radicalisation from Pakistan. However, as the events of the last 70 years indicate, extremism in Kashmir is independent of the constitutional stature of Jammu,” Tushar Gupta has said. Earlier, the Praja Parishad leader Balraj Madhok, the founder of Jana Sangh, Syama Prasad Mookerjee, who laid down his life in Kashmir on June 23, 1953 for the national cause, and the Congress veteran and former President of India, R Venkataraman, had also suggested that Jammu and Ladakh be separated from Kashmir as the aspirations and needs of the J&K’s three regions were conflicting and mutually exclusive. Not only, Madhok, Mookerjee and Venkataraman, CPI General Secretary and former Union Home Minister Inderjit Gupta had also told the Lok Sabha that “trifurcation of J&K could also be a solution”. It is hoped that PM Modi and HM Shah would consider the well-meaning and result-oriented suggestions as given very recently by Jagannathan and Tushar and as put forth by Madhok, Mookerjee and Venkataraman decades ago as far as reorganisation of J&K is concerned. A patient and wise consideration of these suggestions will help the Modi Government in three ways, it will secure and strengthen Jammu; limit the area of jihad to small Kashmir Valley and help the army, central paramilitary forces and police in Kashmir deal with jihad in Kashmir in a more effective manner.