Backpage

THE more things change, the more they remain the same. Nothing proves the veracity of this aphormism than the current debate occasioned by the Kashmir Assembly’s resolution on autonomy, a demand for the restoration of the pre-1953 status. Predictably, the resolution generated howls of protest, with the BJP and its ideological affiliates, the RSS and VHP, castigating the demand as anti-national and secessionist.

Barring Law Minister Ram Jethmalani, who saw some merit in the resolution insofar that it did not question the state’s accession to the Indian Union, the alliance partners in the NDA have come down heavily on the demand. The Congress too dismissed the resolution, in turn suggesting that the 1975 Parthasarthy-Beg Accord be the basis of negotiation. And the left, true to its ideological posturing, supported in principle the idea of autonomy while opposing the resolution.

Part of the difficulty in making sense of the discourse on Kashmir is that across the spectrum we seem to be prisoners of history. The fact that Kashmir acceeded to the Indian Union under special circumstances is well-known. As is the fact that unlike other provinces and principalities, Kashmir was promised a special dispensation. Equally that whatever was promised to Kashmir in the name of autonomy – from nomenclature to laws – has been steadily whittled down over the years. If anything, barring the now distant 1977, the state has still to witness anything like a ‘free and fair’ election.

The alienation of the Kashmiri people from the centre (and India?) does not come as a surprise. Many blame it on the overwhelming presence of armed forces, inevitably resulting in the curbing of fundamental freedoms and rights. That Kashmir is a contested site and the Indian Union is fighting a bloody battle against overt and covert Pakistani intrusion cannot be held out as legitimate excuse.

Far more serious is the near complete lack of development and governance in the state. True, an insurgency situation does not facilitate effective governance. Nevertheless, all the different regimes which have ruled the state over the past five decades, must share the blame for the sorry state of affairs. After all, would the case for additional autonomy not have been strengthened had the state government been able to display some progress on some front?

Nothing, however, weakens Kashmir’s case for autonomy more than its cussedness in devolving power and resources within. Just as Kashmir claims it is being held hostage to India’s self-image as a multi- cultural, plural and secular society, regions within other than the Valley – Jammu and Ladakh – claim that their legitimate aspirations have been thwarted because of the ability of the Valley to blackmail the centre. So, does additional autonomy for the state only translate into further powers to the Valley to suppress the regions?

It would appear so. Unfortunately, the regional autonomy report of the state has engendered less discussion than its more explosive demand for autonomy from the Union. Its proposal to further subdivide the three regions on ethnic majoritarian (read religious) lines carries undertones of the Partition. According to Balraj Puri, whose report on regional autonomy was rejected by the state government, the current proposals, if carried through, will divide every hamlet and settlement on communal lines, result in a massive internal transfer of population, and deal a death blow to a composite Kashmiriyat.

Without for a moment downplaying the ineptitude of the Union government in handling the Kashmiri demand for autonomy – the flip-flops over Farooq Abdullah, playing footsie with the Hurriyat – there is little doubt that demands for special treatment based on exceptionalism will find it difficult to generate widespread support. True, Kashmir is special. But then so are many other states and regions. The Indian Constitution has shown requisite flexibility in accommodating diverse needs. If only the current leadership in the state had located its demand as part of a larger project of restructuring the Indian federal order, it well may have met a different response.

As matters stand we are likely to witness a farcical replay of what has been experienced earlier, with all the parties alternately blowing hot and cold. The major sufferers, as always, will be the people of the state. Once again their basic material demands will be overshadowed by the foregrounding of the symbolic and political. Whether or not anyone will gain, the people of this country will have lost another opportunity to break out of the shackles of the past.

 

Harsh Sethi