J&K: Divide and Rule Better

By Joginder Singh

Kashmir has been the cause of wars with Pakistan in 1948, 1965, 1971 and 1998. The present Line of Control (LoC) between India and Pakistan was negotiated by India, after it defeated Pakistan in 1971. Bangladesh was the direct result of this victory, which was a war of liberation, essentially fought by the Bangladeshis. The LoC is the core of Shimla Agreement, signed between the then Indian Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, and the Pakistani Prime Minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, on July 2, 1972.

Broadly speaking the agreement enjoins both sides to respect the LoC. This is without prejudice to their respective positions on the status of Jammu and Kashmir. This agreement converted the LoC into an international border though this was not specified in words with a view perhaps to pander to sensibilities of the people back home - more in Pakistan than in India. It was reported that - according to some members of the then Indian delegation, among them, Principal Secretary to the PM, PN Dhar - Bhutto wanted this part of the understanding kept out of the formal agreement. He feared it would meet with a huge opposition in Pakistan. He wanted some more time to sell the idea to his people.

The proposal was never formally accepted. Our Parliament has passed a resolution claiming the entire territory of J&K, including the so-called Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). The question of making the LoC the international border comes up in various quarters from time to time. After India and Pakistan went nuclear, J&K Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah publicly supported it. This was swiftly repudiated by the External Affairs Minister, who reiterated the Indian claim to PoK. The LoC as an international border is not a workable solution by itself for Pakistan: It leaves a large - and the most coveted - part of J&K with India.

It seems J&K will remain a headache for a long time to come. Management experts say that the best way to solve a problem is to divide it into parts and tackle one part at a time. Dividing a problem into parts and conquering each part separately are not only less time-consuming, but also cost effective.

Figures tell a grim story about J&K. Between 1990 and February 2000, 20,365 A-K rifles, 8,825 pistols, 958 UMGs, 757 RPGs, 308 sniper rifles, 615 rocket launchers, 1,687 rocket boosters, 75 LMGs and 25,000 kg of RDX have been recovered. In the same period, the death toll has been 7,284 civilians, 9,864 terrorists and 2,579 security personnel. Political parties too have not been spared; 205 members of the National Conference have been killed; the Congress has lost 49 people; the BJP nine; the CPI (M) five; the Janata Dal 10; and the Awami League five.

Violence has affected the Valley the most. The government in Srinagar is hardly able to pay attention to the other parts of the state. Over 70 per cent of the resources allocated by the Centre are supposedly spent in the Valley. The result: A demand to make Ladakh and Jammu separate states/units. The supporters of this proposal feel the Valley itself can be constituted into a separate state. The proposal has found unexpected but welcome support from the RSS. The latter has backed the demand to convert Ladakh in to a Union Territory, as desired by the Ladakhis. The people of Jammu think and feel that the solution to their problems - better administration and development - lies in separate statehood.

Trifurcation - Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh - is also justified on the grounds that the three regions have separate cultural and religious identities. Jammu is largely Hindu, the Valley entirely Muslim after the ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs by terrorists, and most of Ladakh Buddhist. The demand has near-total acceptance in Jammu and Ladakh. Local people argue that they are politically and administratively discriminated against, in favour of the Valley. While Jammu can be made into a separate state, Ladakh is keen on Union Territory status. There have been huge demonstrations in both regions from time to time, pressing for their respective demands and claims.

The rationale behind dividing J&K is valid on other grounds. Jammu and Ladakh are rich in resources and with much potential for tourism as the Valley. But it is the latter that is singled out for development. Jammu has a larger population than the Valley does. But it has been given fewer seats in the J&K Assembly.

The greatest threat to India are double-speaking politicians ruling roost in the Valley, who speak one language in New Delhi and another in Srinagar. One disruptive feature is the autonomy report - or is it a ‘separation from India’ report? - of 1999-2000 which the Farooq Abdullah government passed in the State Assembly. The report and the Assembly resolution aimed at pre-1953 status for J&K. Put simply, it meant granting autonomy to the State in all spheres except defence, foreign affairs and currency. But the responsibility for funding it was left to the Centre!

The justification was that the recommendations were in accordance with the original instrument of accession signed by Raja Hari Singh. The Farooq Abdullah dispensation has complained off and on that, over the years, the Centre has eroded the State’s autonomy and imposed its own writ on Kashmiris. Its rhetoric is nothing if not secessionist. Fortunately, the Centre rejected the Assembly resolution. It clarified that the demand was secessionist and that reverting to pre-1953 status would mean ending the jurisdiction of the Reserve Bank, the Election Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Supreme Court, as well as deleting Articles 356 and 357 of the Constitution. The double game of leaders claiming to be nationalists for the sake of power not only in J&K, but also in Delhi, needs to be exposed. The Chief Minister who wanted India to go to war with Pakistan shed tears when he could not be accommodated as President or Vice-President. His son, a Union Minister, called it a great betrayal.

Some people fear trifurcation may lead to the State’s communal division. Attention is drawn to the J&K’s secular character, essential for preservation of India’s composite culture. Critics of trifurcation say it will justify the two-nation theory that formed the basis for the birth of Pakistan. This criticism is both ill-conceived and ill-founded. If in one state Muslims become the majority, that does not mean India has ceased to be secular. There are a number of States in Northeast where Christians, are the majority. Punjab is a Sikh majority State. This has not compromised Indian secularism. Formation of a separate State in the Valley does not mean its secession, nor a violation of our multi-religious ethos. The truth is that doomsday pundits treat any new idea as anathema. They are afraid to concede that they may be wrong. Ethnically, all three parts of J&K are separate and distinct identities. Article 370 can be extended to all the three regions, while having better administrative units at the same time.

There is nothing wrong in recognising realities and redressing the grievances of two-thirds of J&K. The State Administration will find it easier to deal with divisive and disruptive elements in a focused manner. As also to isolate terrorists in the Valley and eliminate them at their entry point  it will make tackling their harbourers in the Valley less difficult. The idea has a lot of merit and should not be dismissed just because RSS has floated it. It should be pursued to its logical end, given that it seems the only way to satisfy popular aspirations.

*The author has remained Director of CBI.

Previous

Index

Next