Dr Karuna Thakur
Linguistic reorganization of states in India in the fifties was the first major step in defining the territorial boundaries of ethno-linguistic groups which until then were largely undefined. Since the British adopted a selective rather than a uniform approach in bringing about the administrative unification of the vast Indian sub continent, most regions in India on independence existed in a more or less fluid state, inhabited by large overlapping ethnic groups. And the decision to grant statehood by the Indian Government in each case was guided by the pressures brought about by dominant groups through mass agitations , violence and insurrection :Tamil Nadu, Andhra , North East and later other states are examples of such an assertion . In the early phase , Indian Government came to rely on a principle that statehood demands shall not be conceded “capriciously”, which meant that contending ethnic groups had to demonstrate active pressure in the form of protests and agitations to validate their claims. On their part, groups that demanded statehood did so because of a deep sense of remoteness or distance that they experienced from the centers of power in cultural , material and political terms . These were precisely the factors which set in motion the process of recognizing claims for separate statehood.
In case of Jammu and Kashmir, a history of conquest and annexation, rather than considerations of ethnicity led to the formation of the state in pre independence period. A cursory look at the demographic and geographic composition of the state bears sufficient proof of the fact that conjoined the three distinct parts into a whole. Understandably, after independence as the Indian Government grappled with issues of national sovereignty, unity and territorial boundaries related to Kashmir, Jammu and also Ladakh were left somewhat unattended. This indifference over the years did not diminish, rather it increased and deepened Jammu’s discontent.
As to why Jammu must demand a separate state therefore amounts to questioning the obvious; because societies are not static entities, they evolve over time, adding to their cultural resource, memory and history. Political form and content of societies therefore is based on these specific historical experiences. Indeed, political resistance for separate states and nations is based on this premise: the right of the people to govern themselves according to their indigenous histories. One obviously cannot be ruled by borrowed histories and actors, and surely six decades in the life of a region is a reasonable period of time to make an appraisal of the costs and benefits that have accrued to it. Interestingly voices demanding state hood for Jammu often invite strong reactions, and fears are expressed that Jammu’s separation will erode the multicultural fabric of the region. But then, multiculturalism is not only about inter- cultural harmony and peace ; rather the fundamental premise of multiculturalism is challenging the structures of dominance and oppression and ensuring equality for all in the public domain ,so that the pursuit of one good does not become a justification for denying the other . Instead of trading one for the other, an appropriate fit between harmony and equality has to be sought so that both reinforce each other. It is this spirit which should be the guiding principle while addressing Jammu’s aspirations.
What does Jammu suffer from? Surely its suffering is one of distance or remoteness from the structures of power which disables it from becoming an effective partner in what why and how the politics of Jammu region. This distance, to cite a few examples, is exhibited in the governance of hill regions, cultural groups and disproportion in the sphere of electoral representation. A tough and inhospitable hilly terrain is insulating in itself, but when neglected as in the given situation, these underdeveloped areas are sites of frequent death and disaster- attributable to forces both natural and manmade. Furthermore, in a region of immense ethno-linguistic diversity, recognition of some ethnic groups and disregard for numerous others that exist in a state of passive existence is certainly not a norm of inclusive governance. But Jammu’s deepest distress is that of non representation of a large mass of people who though citizens of the state are denied the right to elect a representative to articulate their demands. A disproportion in the ratio of population and representation which deprives a mass of population from exercising its right to be represented is on all accounts discriminatory and undemocratic. It is this distance- cultural, political and economic which is annoying and needs to be bridged. Surely for an average citizen of Jammu, budget allocations under different sectors have little meaning if he feels a sense of remoteness from governance on a daily basis. Indeed, if one were to define a key element of Jammu’s social and political life; it is protest politics of daily subsistence and nothing more. A review of newspaper coverage of the last sixty years would be the best testimony of such an observation. These issues of subsistence need to be resolved and an appropriate linkage established between the rulers and the ruled before charting out higher goals for the region. Numerically, Jammu may have enhanced its presence in the electoral arena over the years as is evident from the composition of the Government ; but that is not enough , because three crucial components of power : rule making , agenda setting and decision making still remain beyond the reach of these representatives. And that is where Jammu needs its rightful share of empowerment.
It is no exaggeration then to contend that Jammu suffers from a sense of disempowerment; the sentiment is genuine, well founded and expressed in the spirit of democracy that exercises the option of “voice” rather than “exit.” And hence the response also has to be democratic and accommodative. Jammu’s sentiments need to be respected and honored in the best possible way.
Though statehood as an ideal is worth pursuing, issues like economic viability, resource generation and sustenance may prove prohibitive. In that case it may not really be a win all situation. But then, if not state hood what is the next best option? It is time to think.
Follow our WhatsApp channel