An avoidable mess

By K. K. Katyal

IT WAS a perfect example of how not to handle a problem - a sensitive one at that. A series of misplaced steps, unnecessary and avoidable, has ended in a mess from which it may not be easy for the Centre and the Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister, Dr. Farooq Abdullah, to extricate themselves. But a grim view need not be taken of the recent developments on ``autonomy''. The Kashmir problem had numerous knots and one addition does not make much of a difference. The controversy will serve a purpose if it brings to the fore a crucial issue that was relegated to the background. And if, in the process, the ``autonomy'' idea is fine-tuned and efforts are made to build a consensus on it, a major step will have been taken in the national interest.

Yes, it was a mess, both the Central and State leadership could have done without. Its handling could not have been clumsier. The National Conference need not have taken the autonomy issue to a feverish pitch and the Centre, on its part, could have avoided the rejectionist approach. Given the history of Jammu and Kashmir's accession, the constitutional provision on its special status and the procedures adopted for integrative measures since 1953, it could not be clubbed together with other States for devolution of powers. New Delhi rightly rejected Pakistan's locus standi and it also realised the need for removing the alienation of a large section of the population in the Valley. The ``no'' to the autonomy demand could, however, only add to the anti-Centre sentiments.

Fortunately, the process of unwinding has begun, promising to avert a break of the type that was feared - in the political ties of the ruling parties at the Centre and in the State. The death of Begum Abdullah helped to relieve the tension, generated by roused passions in Srinagar. The time thus gained, coupled with personal gestures by the Central leaders to the ruling family in the State, has helped to reverse the drift.

The discussions between them are to start and, informally, the search for a way out has thrown up constructive ideas - for instance, a proposal for referring the autonomy issue to the Commission, now reviewing the working of the Constitution.

The discussions will be facilitated if the tendency to become a prisoner of words is given up. Both the talk of ``devolution'' and references to the pre-1953 position have created problems because of narrow, rigid interpretations. In Northern Ireland, which had been wanting a greater, effective control of local affairs, the struggle was for ``devolution''. In India, it denotes diluted or nominal autonomy. The way the NC members dealt with the State Autonomy Committee (SAC) report indicated their preference for a conclusive return to the pre-1953 status. Actually - as emphasised by Dr. Abdullah now - they wanted that situation treated as the starting point for a negotiable exercise, a give-and-take process. A return to the 1953 phase is not feasible because, as has been pointed out in a lighter vein, what was inconceivable then has happened. Now Sheikh Abdullah's grandson is in the BJP-led Government at the Centre, while Maharaja Hari Singh's grandson is in the NC Cabinet.

Looking back, there is no ambiguity about the sequence of events since the crisis first erupted - and the linkages between successive developments are clear. Dr. Abdullah sent a copy of the SAC report to the Centre last year - well after it had been submitted to the State Government some 15 months ago. This seemed a proforma exercise and no particular meaning was seen in either New Delhi or Srinagar. No one at the Centre took serious notice of this report - so much so, the document mysteriously disappeared and a new copy had to be sent. In April this year, Hurriyat leaders were released at the instance of the Union Government as the Home Minister, Mr. L. K. Advani, offered to hold a dialogue with them. Coming as the offer did in the wake of the U.S. President, Mr. Bill Clinton's visit to India, it was linked with the American view favouring the use of political rather than military means by New Delhi to sort out the internal aspect of the Kashmir problem. The Centre took Dr. Abdullah into confidence before deciding on its approach to the Hurriyat - as a matter of fact, the detenues could not have been freed except on the orders of the State Government.

Dr. Abdullah, it appears, apprehended isolation - there was enough circumstantial evidence to confirm that. He might be sidelined, he perhaps felt as he reckoned with the possibility of the Centre talking to the Hurriyat on the ``sky is the limit for autonomy'' formulation. He thus thought of a pre-emptive move to prevent the hijacking of the autonomy platform.

In June, reports from Srinagar began mentioning the State Government's plan to present the SAC report to the Assembly ``for discussion''. That was what Dr. Abdullah told the Prime Minister, Mr. A. B. Vajpayee, and Mr. Advani - first in Leh at the time of the Sindhu festival and later at his meetings with them in New Delhi. They did not take a grim view of this plan, as was evident from their low-key comments. It was a different story when the resolution was put to vote in the Assembly and adopted. Even though the action stunned the ruling establishment at the Centre, the Prime Minister - then on a Europe trip - and others in New Delhi sought to play it cool. Not so the RSS - which saw the autonomy, as mentioned in the Assembly resolution, as a step towards secession. Adopting a strongly-worded resolution, it sent its chief, Mr. K. S. Sudershan, to New Delhi to convey its strong sentiments to the Prime Minister. This he did. Just then strident voices from Assam and Punjab suggested that the Srinagar move was getting contagious. Because of these pressures, the Union Government advanced a Cabinet meeting (on this subject) by four days - to July 4. It found the Assembly resolution endorsing the SAC report ``unacceptable'' and, therefore, it was decided ``not to accept'' it. Instead, it spoke of its commitment to ``devolution of more financial and administrative powers and functions to the States'', adding integration and devolution had to go together. The Prime Minister, in his public comments, added ``political power'' to the intended devolution pattern.

Why did the Assembly go ahead with the vote, contrary to Dr. Abdullah's assurance to the Centre that the report would be discussed and left at that? Just as the Chief Minister did not want to lose the autonomy card to the Hurriyat, the NC MLAs were keen on establishing their credentials as the votaries of autonomy. The Assembly discussion gave them the much-needed opportunity and they seized on it.

Dr. Abdullah seemed to have read a lot more into the Centre's overtures to the Hurriyat than was warranted. Hasn't he overreacted? No, say his associates now, drawing attention to the recent presence in Srinagar of a ``Central emissary'' who was reported to have offered chief ministership to the Hurriyat. The activities of Mr. R. K. Mishra, a journalist, involved in the back-channel diplomacy with Pakistan before and after the Lahore process last year, seemed to have led to this speculation. There could not have been any offer of the top post - perhaps, the Hurriyat leaders were told to participate in the electoral process and bid for power.

It was a strange situation - of fears turning fiction into fact. Dr. Abdullah attracted the ire of the BJP for a while when autonomy was regarded as a dirty word. After the fence-mending by the Centre, the party's idioms have changed and he is again a ``patriot''. In the heat of the controversy, an important point is lost sight of - that he fought those who questioned the State's status as an integral part of India. For this, the Pakistanis call him a ``quisling'', ``son of a traitor''. It will be in the interest of the country that the dialogue with him does not become a wasted exercise. Autonomy and national integration can go together. On his part, Dr. Abdullah would need to guard against occasional impetuous use of the Muslim card.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Harry's Cup of magic
Next     : Eliminating the causes of war