Posts
When the BJP
won a clear mandate in the 2014 General Elections, sweeping all the three seats
from the Jammu region, a number of voices from within the party began a clamour
for the repeal of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Social Media also
erupted into frenzy with many supporters of the PM demanding that he set into
motion the process of repealing it. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy lent his considerable
legal expertise to the discussion stating that a mere Presidential order would
be sufficient to abrogate the Article. He did not feel that the Government
needed to go to the Indian Parliament for its approval in this case. Minister
of State, Dr. Jitendra Singh, had also stirred the hornet’s
nest by remarking that the government was in some kind of a discussion with the
“stakeholders”
and that the “process of repealing Article 370” had been
initiated. The then CM of J&K, Omar Abdullah was quick off the block with a
tweet: “Mark my words & save this tweet - long
after Modi Government is a distant memory either J&K won't be part of India
or Art 370 will still exist.” The TV channels were quick to jump in the
fray and the different “stakeholders” were shouting
and screaming in the studios and outside, adding their two-bits to the already
raucous cacophony. One thing that stood out sharply from all this noise
was that most of the panelists had no idea about the Article, its origins, and
its place in the Constitution of India. A lot of myths that have ossified into
belief continue to befuddle the perceptions of people, including senior and
seasoned politicians and constitutional experts. It is, therefore, appropriate
and necessary to revisit this Article, its genesis, and its position within our
Constitution, unemotionally and rationally.
The British
ruled over India in two different ways. The first was direct rule through the
British Parliament represented by the Viceroy and it extended over almost 60%
of the geographical extent of the country, known as “British
India.” The second was through the different princely
states, totaling 562, known as “Indian States” nominally
ruled by the titular Nawab, Raja, Maharaja, etc., but owing allegiance to the
British Crown. The Indian States were allowed freedom to govern their
territories in internal matters, while matters relating to defence,
communications and foreign policy were under the British rulers through
treaties of “paramountcy” that were individually signed with each local
ruler. The citizens
of these princely states were not British subjects but “British
protected persons” unlike the citizens of British India. The
princes were protected from their neighbours by the presence of British troops
in the capital of the state under the control of a Resident. This served the
dual purpose of keeping the activities of the prince under constant watch as
also providing him protection from his enemies.
On 20th
February, 1947 the British government announced that it would be giving freedom
to British India by creating two independent dominions of India and Pakistan
based on the Hindu and Muslim majority areas of the various provinces that
constituted British India. However, with regard to the 562 princely states, the
British announced that the political arrangements under the treaties of “paramountcy” would no
longer be valid and the powers that the states had given to the British would
revert to them. In other words, the Indian States would become independent
states on their own and the communal basis of the partition of British India
would not be applicable to them. True to their imperial colours, the British
had attempted a fragmentation of the subcontinent too mind-boggling to
comprehend. With 562 independent countries scattered all across the length and
breadth of the country, the British had sowed the seeds of future civil wars
and ethnic conflicts. It is pertinent to note that out of the 562 fragments
only 14 would have been within the geographical extent of Pakistan, while the
remaining 548 would lie within India. Imagine the administrative chaos of
dealing with such a large number of independent entities!
The solution
to this problem was found in the “Instrument of Accession”
proposed by Sardar Patel’s secretary, V. P. Menon, under which the
states would hand over the same three functions; namely defence, foreign
affairs and communication, to the Central Government, while retaining the other
rights that they had under the treaties of paramountcy. The draft instrument of
accession was circulated among the princes by the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten on
25th July 1947, whom he also advised that though legally they were
independent, they should accede to one of the two dominions before the official
transfer of power, keeping in mind the ‘geographical
contiguity of their States’. They would be surrendering to the Central
Government only three subjects: defence, external affairs and communications.
He also warned the States, “If you do not link with one or other of the
dominions, you may be cut off from any source of supply.” In return, the Government was prepared to
allow them to keep their titles, palaces, privy purses, and their right to
British decorations and other privileges. By August 14, 1947 Sardar Patel’s
“basket of apples” was almost full, and only three States had
not signed the Instrument of Accession. These three were: Hyderabad, Junagarh,
and Jammu & Kashmir.
How the first
two apples fell into the basket is another story and not relevant here. The
third apple, which at that time comprised of the largest (in area) of the
princely states, had a Hindu Maharaja ruling over a large majority of Muslims,
with Hindus and Buddhists forming the rest of the religious entities. Maharaja
Hari Singh, a vainglorious individual, had dreams of remaining independent of
both India and Pakistan, and therefore held out against signing the instrument.
The Pakistani attempt to annex J&K by force through its sponsored tribal
invasion in October 1947 forced Hari Singh’s
hand and he had no choice but to sign the Instrument of Accession on 26th
October 1947, when the raiders were almost at the gates of his palace. The
Governor General of India accepted it the next day thereby legally bringing the
state of Jammu & Kashmir within the Dominion of India. The Indian armed
forces, with a legal mandate to stop the aggression of the invaders, swung into
action and were driving the Pakistanis back into their territory when the
Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, without consulting Sardar Patel,
decided to announce a unilateral cessation of hostilities, and
internationalized the dispute by bringing the United Nations in its midst. Within days of signing the
Instrument of Accession, Nehru betrayed the Dominion’s commitment to the State to defend
its territories against external aggression. (Pakistan was still in
control of 115,669 Sq. Kms. of Indian Territory (of which it subsequently ceded
37,555 sq. Kms. to China), while India had only 106567 Sq. Kms., or only 48% of
the original 222,236 Sq. Kms. of the princely state. This betrayal of Nehru not
only lost India a substantial part of the state, but also created a problem of
intractable proportions that has bedeviled it ever since.)
Perhaps India’s
acceptance of the ceasefire line as the effective boundary between India and Pakistan
may have resulted in permanent peace, but for the fact that of all the Indian
states that signed the Instrument of Accession, only the state of Jammu &
Kashmir under the leadership of Sheikh Abdullah and the inept governance of the
Sadr-e-Riyasat, Yuvraj Karan Singh, chose to create a separate Constitution for
itself that would define its relationship with India.
Though a large number of the Indian States had
their representatives in the Constituent Assembly, and the Instrument of
Accession gave them the power to draft a separate constitution for internal
administration, none of them, barring Jammu & Kashmir, chose to exercise
this option, as it was seen as a “Legacy from the Ruler’s polity
which could have no place in a democratic set-up.” The rulers of
these States issued proclamations making the Constitution of India operative in
their States.
Jammu
& Kashmir decided to invoke the terms of Clause 7 of the Instrument of
Accession under which the State was not obliged to implement the Constitution
of India in full. Instead, it
decided to draft its own separate constitution. The Yuvraj of Jammu &
Kashmir, on the advice of his Council of Ministers of his State’s
Interim Government led by Sheikh Abdullah, told the Indian Constituent Assembly
that the Jammu & Kashmir State’s association with India would be based ‘only’ on the terms
of the Accession; that the State’s government did not accept the Constitution
of India as a Constitution for the State, and that, despite accession, the
State was still to be governed by its old Constitution Act of 1939.
Why the Prime
Minister of India and Sardar Patel did not pressurize the Sheikh to do what the
other States had done, and instead acquiesced to his demand is a mystery for
which there are many conspiracy theories but no definite answer? Nehru’s
softness towards Sheikh Abdullah is very well known and there are some who
believe that Nehru did not want to thwart the Sheikh’s
ambition of becoming a Prime Minister instead of a Chief Minister. Another
school is of the opinion that Nehru acted under the influence of Lady
Mountbatten.
However, as a
result of this situation, when the Constitution of India was going to be
operative in the entire nation, a special provision had to be made for the
State of Jammu & Kashmir. This is the genesis of Article 370.
Sir
Gopalaswami Ayyangar, Minister without Portfolio in Nehru’s
Government, moved a Draft Bill labeled Article 306-A in the Constituent
Assembly, making a special Constitutional provision for Jammu & Kashmir. Ayyangar
had already served as the Prime Minister of Kashmir from 1937 to 1943, and had
received multiple honours from the British Government, culminating in a
Knighthood in 1941. As Maharaja Hari Singh’s
Prime Minister for seven years he was fully conversant with the State, and it
is quite possible that he may have nursed the ambition of returning to the
state as its Prime Minister when the British departed from the subcontinent,
and titular rule reverted to the Maharaja. Taking advantage of the prevailing
hostilities with Pakistan in the area, Gopalaswami Ayyangar made the following
argument in favour of his Bill:
“Till India became a Republic, the relationship
of all the States with the Government of India was based on the Instrument of
Accession. In the case of other Indian States, the Instruments of Accession
will be a thing of the past in the new Constitution; the States have been
integrated with the Federal Republic in such a manner that they do not have to
accede or execute a document of accession for becoming units of the Republic.
It would not be so in the case of Kashmir since that particular State is not
yet ripe for this kind of integration due to special conditions prevailing in
Kashmir. In the first place there has been a war going on within the limits of
Jammu and Kashmir State —part of the State is still in the hands of the
enemies, and in the second place, the Government of India have committed
themselves to the people of Kashmir in certain respects. They have committed
themselves to the position that an opportunity will be given to the people of
the State to decide for themselves the nature of their Constitution.”
The
Constituent Assembly recorded that since the debate regarding Jammu &
Kashmir had reached a stalemate in the United Nations, it was decided to have
an interim arrangement in the Constitution of India regarding Jammu &
Kashmir. Sardar Patel, the then Minister of States in India, declared in the
Constituent Assembly, “In view of the special problem with which the
Jammu and Kashmir Government is faced, we have made special provisions for the
continuance of the State with the Union on the existing basis.” Draft Article
306-A was subsequently added to the Constitution of India as Article 370. It is
worth noting that the debate never became heated and even though Mahavir Tyagi
wanted to move a couple of amendments, he never pressed them. Maulana Hasrat
Mohani of U.P. was the only one who spoke that while he was “not
opposed to all the concessions being granted to my friend Sheikh Abdullah,” he wanted to
know “why make this discrimination about this ruler?
If you grant all these concessions to the Maharaja of Kashmir, you should give
all these and more concessions to the Baroda ruler.”
However, within the Congress Party there was a
lot of dissent and members expressed their opposition to the Draft Article
306-A in no uncertain terms. A strong opinion existed against any suggestion of
discrimination between Jammu & Kashmir State and other States as members of
the future Indian Union. The party was not prepared to go beyond certain limits
in making the special provision for Jammu & Kashmir. Cleverly, Nehru had
entrusted this task to Gopalaswami Ayyangar at a time when he would be out of
the country. When Ayyangar saw the opposition to his proposal, he went to
Sardar Patel for help. The Sardar too had seen the draft proposal only in the
meeting of the Congress Parliamentary Party. Although he was of the same
opinion as the majority, being a gentleman, he is reported to have said: “Gopalaswami
had acted under Panditji’s advice. How could I have let him down in the
absence of his Chief?” L. K. Advani has recorded in an article
published in The Indian Express of 17th February 1992 that “Patel asked the Congress Party Chief Whip to
convene a Party meeting to discuss the matter. That meeting was stormier than
the earlier one. Opposition was forcefully and even militantly expressed. It
was left to the Sardar to plead that because of the international
complications, a provisional approach alone could be made. The Congress Party
reluctantly fell in line. Article 306-A was to be allowed to go through by
Patel against his better judgment and because of his belief that the future
would depend on the strength and guts of the Indian Government.” This very article was reprinted in the fortnightly
magazine “BJP Today” of August 1-15, 2000.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, the architect of the
Constitution too had his reservations about this provision. Initially Nehru had
sent Sheikh Abdullah to Dr. Ambedkar to explain to him the position and draft
an appropriate Article for the Constitution. He is reported to have told him, “Mr. Abdullah, you want that India should
defend Kashmir, India should develop Kashmir and Kashmiris should have equal
rights as the citizens of India, but you don’t want India and any citizen of India to have
any rights in Kashmir. I am the Law minister of India. I cannot betray the
interest of my country.” It was only after Ambedkar’s
refusal that Nehru approached Ayyangar to draft the proposal.
With Article 370 embedded in the Constitution
of India, Jammu & Kashmir announced the formation of a State Constituent
Assembly to draft a Constitution for the State. The Drafting Committee’s
report was adopted by the Constituent Assembly on 15th February
1954. The report embodied the ratification of the State’s
accession to India. The State Constitution was formally established on 17th
November 1956 and came into full force on 26th January 1957. It consisted of
158 Sections, of which Section 3 says, “The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be
an integral part of the Union of India.”
Further, in Section 147 of the Constitution that deals with amendments, it is
made quite clear that Section 3 is not amenable to any change. Yet, there is
hardly any mention of this section in national debates.
Labeled as ‘Temporary provisions with respect to the State
of Jammu and Kashmir’ right from the time it came into effect,
the mischief lies in the interpretation of Sardar Patel’s
statement in the Constituent Assembly regarding ‘special provisions for the continuance of the
State with the Union.’ The article continues to be ‘temporary’
in our Constitution and Patel’s use of the word ‘special’ does not
confer any permanence to it. Actually, it is Article 371 that specifies any “Special
Provisions” and not Article 370. Even Nehru had declared on the floor of the
Parliament on 27th November 1963 that “Samvidhan ki dhara 370 ghiste ghiste ghis
jaayegi.” (“Article 370 of the Constitution would
disappear by being eroded progressively.”)
Ayyangar’s draft of Article 370 contains one major
blunder that seems to have escaped all the legal luminaries who finally
approved it. After
drafting the State’s Constitution and its adoption, the Jammu
& Kashmir State Constituent Assembly was disbanded. However, Article 370
states that, “Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing
provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare
that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with
such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify: Provided that the recommendation of
the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be
necessary before the President issues such a notification.” (This is where this author has
a disagreement with Dr. Swamy, and would like his learned opinion on it.)
This
exception gives permanent life to an extinct body while it leaves no other
mechanism for change. The
far-reaching meaning of this blunder is that the President of India can make
any amendments to the provisions of Article 370 only with the permission of a
long defunct and impossible-to-revive State Constituent Assembly. The introduction of the State Constituent
Assembly instead of the State Legislative Assembly in the Article makes its
repeal or amendment not only impracticable, but also impossible. So, before any
attempt is made at repealing or amending Article 370, the Government should
first correct this lacuna. How that can be done is for constitutional experts
to determine!
The resultant
consequence of this defective Constitutional Article has, over the years,
created a vast gap between the laws of our Republic and the state of Jammu
& Kashmir. To list just a few of them:
1.
As per the
Third Schedule mentioned in Article 188 of the Indian Constitution, the oath
sworn by every member of the State Legislature before assuming office requires
the member to "bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of
India." This is true of the affirmation by every High Court and Supreme
Court judge as well. In Jammu & Kashmir however, every legislator and every
judge, including the Chief Minister and the Chief Justice, is required to swear
only by ‘the Constitution of the State’ as mandated
in the Fifth Schedule referred to in Sections 64 and 97 of the Jammu &
Kashmir State Constitution.
2. While Article
172 lays down five years as the normal duration of a State Legislature, that
stipulation is six years in Jammu & Kashmir as laid down in Section 52 of
its State Constitution.
3. Jammu &
Kashmir is excluded from the application of Article 360 under which the Union
Government can give directions to that State to observe canons of financial
propriety and such other measures deemed necessary when a Proclamation of
financial emergency is issued under that Article.
4.
Any law, if
and when enacted about a Uniform Civil Code, will not be applicable to the
State.
5.
A law passed
by the Parliament on Family Planning is not applicable to the State.
6.
The state is
exempted from the law that requires a legislative assembly to not have more
than 15% of its strength as ministers. Omar Abdullah’s
cabinet consisted of 24 members when it should have had no more than 13.
7. Refusal or
failure to comply with any direction given by the Union Government under any
provision of the Constitution of India applicable to Jammu & Kashmir will
not be held as a misdemeanour by that State because the relevant Article 365
has not been extended to that State.
A detailed study of the relationship of the
state with the Union will reveal many more areas of divergence that are only
possible in other states as special provisions. Only in J&K the “temporary” Article 370
has become “immortal” due to the
deliberate or genuine mistakes of the framers of our Constitution. M. P. Jain,
a constitutional expert has neatly summed up this special relationship: “The two characteristic features of this
special relationship are: (1) the State has much greater measure of autonomy
and power than enjoyed by the other States and (2) Centre’s jurisdiction within the State is more
limited than what it has with respect to other States.” The state has its own flag and an anthem
called “Qaumi Tarana,” It is perhaps pertinent to point out here
that the word ‘secular’ that was added to the earlier Preamble of the
Indian Constitution by the 42nd Constitutional amendment in 1976, has been
omitted in respect of Jammu & Kashmir State. The latter’s Constitution of November 1956 therefore does
not proclaim the State’s basic structure to be ‘secular’ in nature.
Jammu & Kashmir is the most autonomous of all the states in
India, and one cannot understand the clamour for Azadi from the
disgruntled Kashmiris. It is not as if Jammu & Kashmir is a very prosperous
and financially robust state. The British, who had sold the state to Gulab
Singh for Rs. 75 Lakhs in 1846, extracted an annual payment from the Maharaja
in return for giving him protection against external enemies. The state was
poor and the Maharaja taxed his subjects to the utmost. Under the Instrument of
Accession, the Government of India was obliged to provide all the facilities at
no cost to the state. Jammu & Kashmir depends heavily upon the Government
of India for financial assistance, and yet it cannot be questioned for any
profligacy. It is the most pampered state in the country. Thus, as calculated by Arun Shourie in 2000, the Central per capita
assistance to Kashmir was 14 times that to Bihar, 11 times that to Tamil Nadu
and 6 times to beleaguered Assam (Interview in The Times
of India, July 8, 2000). V. Shankar
Aiyar, writing “The Great Sop Story” in India Today of 14th
Oct. 2002, says: “For all that talk of autonomy or azadi the fact is
that Jammu & Kashmir cannot sustain itself without the Centre’s support.”
According to him 3.48% of people of Kashmir are living below the poverty line,
as against 26.10% across India. This, he avers, is because of the extraordinary
amount of financial assistance the Centre gives to the state. Kashmiris have
been surviving and living a rather luxurious life compared to the rest of India
solely due to the largesse bestowed upon them by a munificent Centre. The
statistics in Aiyar’s article make for some very disturbing reading.
Coming back to Article 370, there is a
misconception among a number of people that this article prevents people from
the rest of the country to purchase immovable property within the state. There
is nothing within the article that specifies this restriction. The truth is that Article 370 is just the
enabling Constitutional Article that allowed the State of Jammu & Kashmir
to frame and adopt its separate Constitution, and it is that instrument that
has these restrictions imposed upon the citizens of India.
Coming to Article 35A of the Indian Constitution, this Article specifically deals with
laws with respect to the permanent residents of the state and their rights.
Contrary to many beliefs, this Article is not a modification of an existing
Article, but a malevolent addition built into the Constitution to drive a
permanent wedge between the citizens of Jammu & Kashmir and the citizens of
the rest of India. While the Presidential Order of 1954 extended Indian
citizenship to the residents of the state, the purpose of inserting Article 35A
into the Indian Constitution was to enable the State legislature to define the
privileges of the permanent residents of the state. Permanent residents,
defined as “State Subjects” were set out
in the State Maharaja’s Notification of 20th April 1927 read with
the Notification of 27 June 1932. They were chosen on the criteria of year of
birth in the State, on the period of permanent residence in the State, and on
the acquisition of immovable property in the State. It is Article 35A that
forbids those who are not “permanent residents” from:
a)
Acquiring
immovable property.
b) Securing
employment with the state government even though they may be citizens of India.
c)
Becoming a
member of a village Panchayat.
d)
Being
eligible for a State Government scholarship.
e) Being
eligible to vote in the Assembly elections, even though they may vote for the
Lok Sabha in their constituencies.
This perverse article of the Indian
Constitution was added without any debate or discussion in the Parliament and
was presented as a fait accompli to the people of India. It has now been
challenged in the highest courts as a violation of the basic structure of the
Constitution, as any addition or deletion of an Article could only be approved
by the Parliament, as per procedure laid down in Article 368. It is also in
violation of Article 14 that covers “equality
before the law.”
Apart from the above exceptions, Article 35A
also decreed that a woman of Jammu & Kashmir would lose her “state subject” status if she married a non-state subject.
The children of this union would also be excluded. Conversely if a state
subject male married a non-state subject woman, she would be entitled to the
privileges of a state subject, and so would be the children.
Worse still, it condemned workers and settlers
from SC/ST categories, who have lived in the state for generations, to a life
of permanent servitude. The Valmikis
who were brought to the state during 1957 were given Permanent Resident status on
the condition that they and their future generations could stay in the state
only if they continued to be safai
karmacharis, i.e., scavengers. Even after 60 years of service in the state,
their children continue to be scavengers, having been denied the right to move
up the social ladder and look for other professions.
West Pakistani refugees, though citizens of
India, are not given permanent resident status by the state and so remain
bereft of the privileges enjoyed by the state subjects of J & K.
Even admissions to state colleges are
restricted only to children of state subjects.
With this rather unavoidably long background
history into the genesis and development of Articles 370 and 35A, I hope the
reader is more enlightened about their role in our polity. The contingency of
vote bank politics has put personal and party interests above national
interest, and permitted the continuance of this fraud upon the poor people of
India. No doubt the Government of India honoured the Instrument of Accession in
both letter and spirit, but even after six decades, we are continuing to permit
a temporary measure to hold us to ransom. The attitude of the powerful people
in Kashmir and the general public is one of supreme disdain for India and it is
doubly galling to see them extending their begging bowls expecting India’s
largesse as some kind of divine right. They have forgotten that it was they who
in 1947 had implored India to save them from the marauding Pakistanis who were
pillaging the countryside, burning, looting, raping and destroying the very
culture of Kashmir. The arrogance with which Omar Abdullah, his father and the
various two-bit politicians and bureaucrats like Shah Faesal of Kashmir speak
is totally dependent upon the undeserved support they have received from
successive governments at the centre. Jammu and Ladakh have already distanced
themselves from the valley in the manner in which they have voted in the last
general and assembly elections. But as things remain, it is the valley that continues
to call the shots in the State.
If Narendra Modi and his government wish to
remove this dichotomy and fully integrate the state within the Union of India,
he will first have to amend the provision that requires the concurrence of the
defunct Jammu & Kashmir Constituent Assembly to make any changes in Article
370. To expect that the State Government will cooperate in this endeavour is
but a dream. There is no other alternative but to use coercive methods like the
trifurcation of the state. In a separate article http://myvoice.opindia.com/2018/07/the-kashmir-question-a-permanent-solution/ I have already listed it as the one permanent
solution for the Kashmir problem. All the talk about the resettlement of
Pandits in their original homes is so much baloney. The Pandits will not go
back as there is no guarantee of their safety as also of employment. Too much
water has flown down the Vitasta since
the last exodus. The Pandits have built their lives elsewhere.
Their children, born in refugee camps, are now adults with no memory of Kashmir
or what is euphemistically called ‘Kashmiriyat’. Even prosperous Muslims of the valley have
found greener pastures outside Kashmir, and though they may still have their
links with the valley, they are spending more and more time away from it. Lack
of educational infrastructure is taking most young people away from the valley.
Lack of employment opportunities will perforce make them settle elsewhere.
Also, to think that the mere removal of Article 370 will lead to a rush of
immigration from the mainland into Kashmir is downright foolish. The religious
demography is not going to change and Kashmir will remain a Muslim majority
state. However, it is certainly desirable and advantageous for all to revoke
Articles 370 and 35A and bring the state into the Indian Union as an equal and
full partner.
Now that the Supreme Court has “summarily” adjourned the hearing on petitions
challenging the validity of Article 35A on grounds that preparations for local
body elections were under way, it is almost certain that the Modi Government is
wary of starting something that could soon spiral out of control, just a few months before
the next general elections in 2019. The thinking appears to be, “let us first make sure that we are there for a
second term, hopefully with a larger majority, and then undertake this exercise
in full integration.”
As of now, I would leave Articles 370 and 35A
where they are because the current timing for tinkering with them is not right.
Emotional integration must precede any political integration. However, to
revive the economy of the state, massive investments will have to be made by
the Centre. These investments should not be left to the mercy of the corrupt
state bureaucracy but be disbursed and supervised by a competent Central
Ombudsman, someone like the erstwhile British Resident, who would be
responsible for the deployment of central funds within the state but have no
political role to play. Development projects in Jammu and Ladakh could be
implemented with speed and with a higher allocation of funds. The valley will
have to wait till it shows that it has retracted from its belligerence and
separatism. Narendra Modi is perhaps the best person to undertake the task of
reviving the economy of Jammu & Kashmir because he does not subscribe to
vote bank politics and is personally incorruptible.
The way forward, now that the PDP-BJP
government has fallen, should begin with the dissolution of the current
Assembly, with the state being put under Governor’s rule. A change of guard in the Governor’s office is long overdue. A new Governor,
preferably a retired senior military officer with a first-hand knowledge of the
state, would be ideal. A Central Financial Ombudsman would be one of the
frontline advisers in the team assisting the new Governor. Normalization could
begin with the lifting of the state of siege by sending the security forces
into their barracks and by strengthening the military presence on the Line of
Actual Control. A sealed border should prevent Pakistani desperadoes from
stealing into the state unchecked, and ensure that most of them are terminated
before they cross into Indian Territory. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act
also must be gradually withdrawn. As a confidence-building measure, this is of
paramount importance. No doubt Pakistan and its sympathizers within the state
will try to disturb the peace but the state police and central paramilitary
forces should be able to anticipate and deal with them without letting them go
out of hand.
Indians, in 2014, gave themselves a chance to
redeem the freedom they won at such a heavy cost 70 years ago. It is now for
Kashmir and especially for the residents of the valley to understand that
history has given them a chance to jump back from the brink and to make that
leap of faith.
Vijaya Dar
Coonoor,
August 07, 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment