Joining the dots on the line

Shiban Khaibri
Political analysts must have largely felt vindicated about what they expected the three interlocutors would submit in their report on the Jammu and Kashmir situation. Has the team of Dilip Padgaonkar, Radha Kumar and M.M.Ansari made an innovative approach to address the intricate problem of the state or they have simply joined the dots on the line of specific reference received, beyond which they could not go, is central to the recommendations of the group. That they met as many as 700 delegations across the state for more than a year to collate variant views to enable them have access to different shades of opinion based on their aspirations, find very little expression in the report which the Ministry of Home affairs made public on its website on May 24, 2012.
The report has, at the outset, to be seen in the perspective of having been not successful to meet the separatists and both factions of the Hurriyat to know what they had to say in the changed scenario, developed down more than six decades. However the report which was submitted to the Home Ministry on Oct 12, 2011 favoured resumption of dialogue process between the centre and the Hurriyat Conference “at the earliest”. The report says that this dialogue process should yield visible outcome. The report, however, has impliedly set at rest, any of the political solutions of any nature outside the confines of the constitution of India by suggesting that the clock cannot be turned back and there was a need to look at the future and the future should take into account the changed security and economic situation. This, however, is the indirect message to those who still do cast aspersions on and question the validity of the state’s accession with the Union of India. In this, the report has not obliged even the National Conference wherefrom the distinction between the merger and the accession was of late sought to be drawn and the political solution envisioned only through the” autonomy” plank. Perhaps that speaks for the Chief Minister asking for few days’ time to study and examine the report which does not favour a return to pre-1953 position, “We discuss it with senior colleagues and then react”. The report says that the state of Jammu and Kashmir should “continue” to function as a single entity within the Indian Union. The report rightly put its fingers crossed on returning to pre 1953 position as that was bound to create a “dangerous constitutional vacuum in the centre state relationship”. In similar sense, the self rule or joint control model of the principal opposition party, the PDP too find no mention in the report.
The overwhelming participation of the people , especially from the Kashmir region in the Panchayati elections despite threats from the ultra groups, and some of the threats executed also , indicates the people’s over all acquiesce in the democratic system whereby devolution of powers at the grass root village and block levels through panchayati system finds echo in the report, calling for bringing in the desired changes through implementation of 73rd and 74th amendments of the constitution of India for which there have been otherwise pressing demands from the people. The report is slightly self contradictory when it suggests that the high trust deficit needed to be overcome and that the people of Jammu and Kashmir should be empowered in order for them to exercise their civic and political rights. When the huge turn out of voters in the last Assembly and Panchayati elections is taken into account which has earned the distinction of being cent percent fair and free, the question of any impediment in exercising political rights by the people, does not arise when they send their elected representatives to the governing bodies. The last assembly elections, consequently witnessed contesting elections by a few leaders from the separatist ideology, it is another thing that they lost the elections.
The recommendations however do suggest that civic and political rights’ empowerment should be acceptable to all the three regions of the state and even should be in favour of those communities which have been “uprooted from their homes because of force, wars and endemic violence”. The report is completely silent about the menace of terrorism and growing radicalism in the valley and the imperious far reaching effects thereof resulting in such uprooting, identifying the vast spectrum of victims mostly innocent and peace loving, and the ways as to how to reverse such causes and take on terrorism effectively. Instead, it has suggested reduction of intrusive presence of security forces in the state and amendment of PSA and review of AFSPA as if presence of army units was any cause of problem to restore peace. The role of the army and the sacrifices given by them right from 1947 find no mention and not even this that before 1990, there has been not a single incident of any avoidable involvement of the army any where in the valley or any part of the state. It appears that with this measure, there shall be complete peace in Kashmir which has proved wrong as attacks on Para military and police forces continue unabated in Kashmir, only the number of incidences may have been less. It has however not taken a note of the deep involvement of Pakistan in fomenting trouble in the valley right from the Kabayli raid of 1947 till date and not addressed therefore the continuous problem of cross border terrorism and sending in of armed and indoctrinated militants by designated agencies from Pakistan to create disturbances in the state. Amnesty for terrorists and their rehabilitation as suggested by the group has larger security ramifications. Similarly, the recommendations of making LOC irrelevant and to use it for greater movement of goods and people in a hassle free way, has to be seen less as an emotive issue and more as a security issue. The resolution of Parliament in 1994 declaring whole of the Pakistan occupied parts of the state as belonging to India has to be seen in the context of rendering LOC irrelevant which however finds no mention in the report. The border experience has been dismal and that of treachery calling for no such fiddling with this sensitive issue.
The interlocutors have recommended that there should be a review exercise in respect of the extension of central acts and articles of the constitution of India after 1952 for which a constitutional committee could be constituted as “we have said that most of the articles and acts are fairly innocuous”, the question then is resting on two premises. Firstly shall it widen or bridge the gap of integration of the state with the Union and secondly when the report itself suggests that most of such articles and acts are not against the interests of the people, what purpose shall it serve to go in for the review exercise? This is unwittingly tantamount to playing in the hands of secessionist politics to start with the exercise of rescinding central laws and articles to weaken the ties with the centre. Another aspect of the report is with regard to the Article 370 which is sought to be prefixed with the word “special “instead of “temporary” status and is beyond one’s comprehension as to what purpose was that going to serve. Like wise, gradual replacement of IAS and IPS officers with those of the local cadre and the “local mixed police” as recommended by the group was not aimed at integration of the people with rest of the country. The interlocutors have to a large extent, addressed the problem of parity as regards legislative, executive and financial powers to three regions of the state – Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh for which three regional councils are proposed to be set up which shall go a long way to remove apprehensions about one ignored to benefit the other which shall result in an even economic progress of the state on the whole. The issue of appointment of the Governor, the powers of the Governor and the nomenclature issue have also been discussed in the report, however, the tallest leader of the state Late Sheikh Abdullah had put to rest, the nomenclature issue in that he had agreed to be called the Chief Minister instead of Prime Minister in 1975 Indira – Sheikh accord. The report is appearing much in content than in substance and the structured feed back, to be assimilated by the interlocutors shall rate the report accordingly.

Follow our WhatsApp channel