The Autonomy Anthem - (Indolink.Com, 15/08/2002)

-- By Dasu Krishnamoorty

Prime Minster Atal Behari Vajpayee's I-Day speech did little to dispel the ambivalence about autonomy for Kashmir. This gives a fresh spurt of inspiration to the Abdullah family's chorus singing the autonomy anthem. Regardless of this issue, elections will be held, come what may, and held under our own Election Commission. The international community, a reification of an already vague concept, will not be there to oversee the poll. The announcement of poll schedules is an invitation to all political parties to participate. If they choose not to, it is their privilege.

The autonomy demand has a large support base in the media and among campus intellectuals. However, nobody has been able to explain coherently the logic behind the need for autonomy. Elections are the highest form of democracy and Kashmir has seen several of them. An elected assembly is the supreme decision-maker and caretaker of the people's interests. If elections as a democratic solution are to be rejected because of rigging, the remedy is to prevent rigging and not boycott elections. No other Indian state is demanding autonomy though they are all better administered and more developed.

Some columnists argue that restoration of autonomy would go a long way in reviving the people's confidence in the Indian Union. Good logic. People in other states too can begin losing confidence in the Indian Union if that brings them autonomy. The Congress, with a history of support for the autonomy aspirations, is in a dilemma this time because the issue is too sensitively linked to the problems Pakistan is creating through export of terrorism. However, when the Muslims are in a majority in the state, why do they need the privileges that minorities deserve?

I do not support the VHP demand for further division of Kashmir but to reject it because it creates a separate enclave for the Kashmiri pandits amounts to doublespeak. If the demand for autonomy for Kashmir is valid because the majority of its population is Muslim, a separate homeland for the pandits does not for the same reason become untenable. The fear that it could lead to communal polarization is too late because such a thing has already happened. The entire trouble in Kashmir is due to the special status conferred on it indicating that anything to do with the minorities will have to be on their terms.

Fortunately, the country is firm on ignoring calls for a dialogue with Pakistan if that includes Kashmir. It is a matter between the people of Kashmir and the Government of India. Pakistan is welcome to join the dialogue to discuss the terms for returning the occupied territory. Writers with access to the mainstream media suggest the conversion of the line of control into an international border. They point out to an agreement between Nehru and Ghulam Mohammed for a division along the ceasefire line. Indira Gandhi and Z.A. Bhutto also believed that conversion of LoC into an international border was a solution.

More advice is in the coming. According to it India should concede ground because the two regions of Kashmir under control of India and Pakistan have lived together for more than half a century. That is all the more reason why the two regions must unite and stay with India of which they were originally a part. It may be difficult but not impossible to reclaim the territory under Pakistan's occupation. The army had done it earlier only to be let down by the political commanders-in-chief. But this is not the end of insanity of the autonomy lobby. It wants an amendment to the Constitution making Kashmir's autonomy its basic feature. Such suggestions stretch the limits of our sanity.

The chorus for autonomy is becoming shriller by the day. A leader writer says, "The Centre needs to heed Kashmir's cry for autonomy." Is it because Farouq Abdullah declares that peace in Kashmir is not possible without autonomy? The press featured several articles favouring autonomy. One expert says that for the Indian Union to retain Kashmir as a constituent unit, it will have to accept that this particular State is historically entitled to a much larger degree of autonomy than the other States. Pray, why?

Another says India must negotiate with elected representatives the quantum of autonomy the State's people feel is necessary for functional self-rule. What is it? Perhaps a phrase, that has meaning but no sense. He thinks that the Vajpayee government is inclined to have the autonomy question looked at on the basis of the Sheikh Abdullah-Indira Gandhi agreement of 1975. Not really. The J & K Assembly passed a resolution two years ago demanding autonomy, a demand the government in New Delhi refused to concede.

None of the experts tell us why Kashmir deserves autonomy. They argue that "the BJP-l ed government will have to accept the reality that autonomy as envisaged under Art. 370 is a historical right of the Kashmiri people which the Indian Union had committed itself to preserve at the time of its accession. The people of Jammu and Kashmir have a unique social contract with the Union of India. Autonomy was the central part of the instrument of accession." The aim should be to evolve an arrangement that respects the State's unique political heritage rooted in the historical circumstances surrounding its accession to India.

Are the terms historical right, unique political heritage, historical circumstances, unique social contract and functional self-rule self-explanatory? The history the world knows about Kashmir is a history of violence and bloodshed, a saga of political blackmail and a parasitic dependence on the revenues of other states of India. It accounts for more than half of the country's defense expenditure. Do human rights bodies want that soldiers who are targeted by the militants adopt non-violence? What is Kashmir's record in any area of development despite the privileged position it has enjoyed so far?

How is Kashmir historically entitled to a much larger autonomy than the other states? The term autonomy does not figure anywhere in Center-state relations. The Constitution clearly defines the powers of the states and the Centre. If there are disputes, they are related to the share of revenues through taxes. There is also machinery for dispute resolution. All the states accept the jurisdiction of the Centre in certain areas. Article 370 is temporary and the government has a right to annul it any time in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. If there is any history that is unique in the case of Kashmir, it is a history of discrimination and inequity.

Kashmir is an integral part of India. Nobody has asked why it had received a treatment different from Hyderabad, Travancore or Baroda. Art. 370 begins with this sentence: Temporary provisions with respect to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Article ends with this sentence: Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this Article ceases to 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 notification.

One question that needs an answer is how can any change in the provisions of the Indian Constitution depend on the consent of a State constituent assembly. One editor argues that New Delhi will have to accept the reality that autonomy as envisaged under Article 370 is a historical right of the Kashmiri people which the Indian Union had committed at the time of its accession. True, the commitments have been made to Maharajah Hari Singh. The times and conditions of his accession and our acceptance of certain conditions were different. The State constituent assembly undid the arrangements the Maharaja had incorporated in the instrument of accession. The President of the Indian Republic, therefore, is not bound to respect the provision to wait for a recommendation from the State constituent assembly, to annul Article 370.

The very words 'temporary provisions' indicate that the government and our own Constituent Assembly intended that they should be so.