Harsha Kakar
Post the recent attack on Amarnath yatris, calls for Governor’s rule in the state rose sharply. Jammu and Udhampur experienced bandhs solely for this purpose, supported by the Panthers Party, a local outfit. Most mainstream parties did not raise the issue on this occasion, however had done so vociferously in the past. Post the elimination of Burhan Wani and the violence which followed, mainstream political parties made strong demands for Governor’s rule. Even after the incident involving Major Gogoi and a low voter turnout in the Lok Sabha by-polls, Farooq Abdullah echoed the same.
The reasons being claimed by opposition parties is that the BJP-PDP combine lacks the trust of the people and has failed to deliver. Simultaneously are claims that the State Government has been unable to control militancy and hence should be sacked and Governor’s rule imposed, paving way for strong action by the Central Government.
Prior to even considering this aspect, we need to realize that this Government is unique in many ways. The BJP won most seats in the Jammu division, while the PDP won a majority in the Valley, a vast variation in support base for the two parties. Neither had a base in the others region. No other combination could have provided stability for the state to function. Other parties had ruled earlier but failed miserably, hence were discarded by the populace.
There were vast differences in the thought process between the two, even at the time of the alliance. This could be gauged from Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, the erstwhile Chief Minister, thanking Pakistan for enabling the election to be conducted peacefully, an action the BJP chose to ignore. It was his statesmanship and maturity which held the alliance together, however, cracks began emerging post his untimely demise. Mehbooba Mufti hesitated for a prolonged duration before accepting the reigns of office. Thus, there were rumours galore that the alliance is doomed to collapse, however the astuteness of Delhi, which had an agenda for the region, managed to pull it through. It has survived crises after crises and held together, possibly just.
The major difference in thought between the two parties is on handling the embroil go in the state and seeking a long-term solution. While the PDP considers both, the separatists and Pakistan, as part of the solution, hence had talks with both listed in the agenda of alliance, the centre considers them as part of the problem, especially post the strikes in Pathankot and Uri as also violence post the Burhan Wani elimination, hence refuses to enter into any dialogue.
While the State Government has attempted to do its share, however, has been unable to create any alternative group to the separatists,enabling talks. This has impeded worthwhile solutions from emerging,thus a stalemate exists. Rajnath Singh did attempt to seek a solution, when he visited the valley in the midst of the turmoil in 2016, however got no answer.
The impression which flows across the nation is that for the centre to push through hard military actions, Governor’s rule would be ideal, since there would be minimum interference by local political parties and politicians, thus providing the army a free hand to achieve its aims. This may possibly be a wrong thought process.
In Kashmir, especially when anti-militancy operations are on the up, there is a requirement for a democratic Government to be in place. Removing an elected State Government, especially when firm actions are being undertaken has disadvantages. Firstly, it conveys a message that the situation is critical and beyond the control of the state, which is factually untrue, as it is well under control. Secondly, it conveys to the locals that their agitation and violence has caused panic in the centre, hence begin believing that they are on the path of achieving their goals, obtaining more support.
Thirdly, it would provide additional ammunition to the separatists to instigate the local population, claiming the Central Government’s desire to forcefully crush their movement, change demography and even abrogate article 370, which Kashmiri’s consider sacrosanct. This could enhance law and order problems as such rumours are likely to spread fast, even in regions unaffected by militancy, especially when the Central Government is viewed to be a pro-Hindutva Government.
Finally, it could enable Pakistan’s deep state to speed up rumour mongering on similar lines. Pak would exploit any untoward incident occurring by blowing it up in international circles, claiming imposition of martial law in the state. It would give them a feeling of success, which they could boast to their own local population, enhancing support for the deep state and permitting it to hide its failures in their own interiors.
The Indian army by itself is presently neither constrained nor restricted by any political pressure from the state government. It functions as hitherto fore, in coordination with other central forces and state police. The Unified Command under which all security forces function in J and K, is chaired by the state chief minister, however, has met on limited occasions. There have been no adverse reports on its meetings. In addition, there have been no demands for either reducing the army’s power, curtailing Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) or moving it out of certain regions. These have been raised on occasions but never forced or pushed hard, hence status quo has remained. The army has complete cooperation and support of the state.
An elected government is essential to apply balm and cool local tempers whenever there are incidents of accidental deaths or injuries due to security forces action. This was witnessed during the violence last summer. Meeting victims of terror strikes, conveys a positive attitude on behalf of the state as was evident when the Chief Minister herself met victims of the Amarnath Yatra terror strike.
The Government is in the process of isolating the Hurriyat. As it seeks to move them away from the state, it would be the responsibility of the state government to create a second line of acceptable leaders, through whom the Government could consider announcing its Kashmir package, moving focus from militancy to development and jobs. As the army moves forward in relentless pursuit of militants, flow of illegal funds dry up, reducing violence, the Governments true role would commence.
The State Government would be the conduit for the centre’s Kashmir policy, creating an environment for dialogue or strictly implementing Central package and development schemes. If both work in tandem, the state could begin witnessing a period of calm and peace could return.The State Government has witnessed difficult times and both the centre and the state have stood together, now they need one another even more, if the state is return to some form of normalcy. Imposing Governor’s rule would be moving the scenario back in time and cause more harm than good.
(The author is a retired Major General of the Indian Army)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel