AUTONOMY
Kashmir's Pandotra's Box

By Sarla Handoo

The Centre's decision to have a fresh look at the demand for granting Autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir has revived the debate on the subject, which had been scuttled by the previous NDA Government by refusing point blank to even consider the demand, let alone discuss it. The UPA Government obviously has a different view and hence the debate.

That the Centre announced the decision after meeting the National Conference leaders Dr. Farooq Abdullah and Omar Abdullah has sent a clear message that Delhi is under pressure from the National Conference. The party believes that short of independence, demanded by the separatists in the state, autonomy is the best course to resolve the issue. In fact it was this party, which raised the issue afresh in 1996 and contested the elections on the autonomy plank then. The NC later got a resolution passed in the State Assembly.

Expectedly, the Hurriyat Conference has rejected the move, as a futile exercise saying nothing short of independence is acceptable to it. The moderate faction led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has alleged that the Centre is trying to "ward off growing pulls and pressures from the international community" to address the Kashmir issue.

Almost all factions of the Kashmiri Pandit leadership also have questioned the wisdom of the Centre's move. They say it will open a Pandora's box and help only in furthering the designs of the separatist groups. A delegation of the Kashmiri Pandit Samaj led by its president met the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to reiterate its opposition. The Panun Kashmir and others too are against reviving the autonomy debate.

Much as the three divisions of the state are diverse on many accounts, they are equally and sharply divided on the autonomy issue as well. While the people in Valley are all for autonomy, Jammu and Ladakh are bitterly against it. Both have a grudge against the Srinagar based state Government. There are allegations of discrimination against these two regions in the matter of development activities. The accusations have not been addressed despite the recommendations of the Gajendergadkar and other subsequent commissions, which largely remain unimplemented.

The people of Jammu want stronger integration of the state with the Indian Union to carry it forward on the road to progress. They have been demanding a separate state for Jammu. The people of Ladakh have been struggling a great deal for decades to make their land a Union Territory. In fact, the emergence of the Ladakh Hill Development Council was a result of this movement. They apprehend that if the J&K gets autonomy it will take Ladakh further away from the central control leading to more discrimination against by the State Government. The controversy over reviving the autonomy plank has to be viewed against this backdrop.

Does the reopening of the Autonomy issue amount to belittling the Indira -Sheikh Accord reached in 1975, as some would say?

The autonomy issue was discussed thread bare between Mirza Afzal Beig on behalf of the tallest leader of Kashmir Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and G. Parthasarthy on behalf of Indira Gandhi, then Prime Minister of India, before the two great personalities signed the accord which brought back the Sheikh as the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. And the accord does form the basis of future relationship between New Delhi and Srinagar.

The Panthers Party is adamant that unless the issue of LOC is settled finally with Pakistan there is no point in talking to any group in Kashmir on the Autonomy issue.

The National Conference feels that there has been gradual erosion of the special status granted to J&K by Article 370 and the promises made in the Delhi Accord signed in 1952 between Nehru and the Sheikh. Both the Article and the Accord do confer a special position to the state in various fields.

Article 370 limits the jurisdiction of Parliament to frame laws for the state to three subjects -Defence, External Affairs and Communication in terms of the Instrument of Accession. . Other laws can be extended to the state only with prior concurrence of the State Government. Delhi has all along been maintaining that all Central laws have been extended to the state only after the approval of the J&K Assembly.

But what is generally missed, the National Conference argues, is that Article 370 itself provides that "if the concurrence of the Government of the State be given before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the State is convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon".

In other words, mere concurrence of the State Government is not enough, according to Farooq Abdullah. It has to be ratified by the Constituent Assembly before the Law pertaining to the areas other than those specified in the Instrument of Accession, are concerned.

The National Conference argues that even this power of the President to extend laws to the state ends once the Constituent Assembly concluded its task and dispersed in 1956. By that account no Central law beyond Defence, External Affairs and Communication could be extended to the state after this date.

Legal niceties apart, when the State Government reviewed Central laws extended to the state after 1952, it did not find a single law that was not in the interest of the people of the state.

Why all this fuss then.

Surely, the debate on the emotive subject will unfold a plethora of arguments on both sides, which would only confound the confusion further. (Syndicate Features)

Indo-Pak peace parley?

By S. Zakaria

Has the Indo-Pak peace parley reached a dead-end? This is a question that it is now haunting many who sincerely believe in good neighbourly relations between the two countries. Leaving apart Pakistan's obsession with Kashmir resolution first and India's insistence on strengthening confidence building measures before addressing Kashmir issue, there are other indicators which suggest that things if not having gone downhill have stagnated at the point from where the beginning was made. Various proposals were put forward by India for confidence building, which Pakistan agreed to examine. India is still waiting for Islamabad's response. All bilateral dialogues held so far have ended with an agreement to keep talking and nothing much. Whatever the forward movement is visible is due to India's own initiative. Pakistan has so far contributed nothing in the process except for giving lip services. The lastly held talks between the Foreign Secretaries of two countries in fact gave rise to genuine apprehension that the peace initiative would lapse into a quagmire of despondency as had happened so often in the past several years.

Success of Indo-Pakistan peace parley is linked to the stability in Pakistan. Like all previous military rulers, General Musharraf also wants to keep his option open about using violence, when he feels his own position threatened. Improved economic cooperation, people-to-people contact between the two countries, and ultimately an honourable resolution of Kashmir issue will deprive him of such option at a time when his own position has become vulnerable. He is facing multi-pronged threat. With his refusal to doff his uniform on Dec. 31 as promised to Muttahida-Mazlish-e-Amal (MMA) to break the impasse on the 17th amendment of the Constitution, MMA is up in arms against him. The MMA intends to organize about 500 demonstrations in Karachi alone as part of its nation-wide protest movement beginning January 7. MMA is being supported by the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy; in this anti-Musharraf movement to see the uniform off. Altaf Hussain of Mohajir Qomi Movement has also declared that his party was ready to join the opposition against military intervention in politics and would leave the Government to join the movement against the Government. In addition, Musharraf's WANA offensive against Taliban/Al-Qaida has divided the Pak army from within. A purging operation is already underway to rid the army of anti-Musharraf and pro-Jehadi elements. Officers and men are compulsorily retired, transferred to insignificant places, court marshaled on flimsy grounds, and in some cases we even awarded capital punishment. Such strong arm tactics have certainly led to further resentment against him and his Government within the armed forces.

No doubt, General Musharraf presently looks firmly in the saddle. The USA and its western allies have already awarded a degree of legitimacy to his undemocratic rule. His PR officials have created an image about him as a man who has built good relations with a super power, who is looking India in the eye, who is busy cleaning up the administration, and who has introduced micro-economic stability. Though not popularly elected, he has made himself popular through PR exercise. But there is always a 'but' that haunts him. He tries to present himself as indispensable for Pakistan, but he is aware of General de Gaul's saying, "The graveyards of the world are full of indispensable men." It is that fear in him that forbids him to let the confidence building measures vis-a-vis India fructify. He is a dictator and to quote President Bush, "Dictators are quick to choose aggression , while free nation strive to resolve differences in peace."

Differences do exist between India and Pakistan. Concerned with gathering cloud against him in his own country, General Musharraf may choose to turn hawkish vis-a-vis Kashmir. It is not without coincidence that Islamabad had derailed the proposed Muzaffarabad-Srinagar bus route, that would have been a positive step towards resolution of Kashmir problem. It is also not without coincidence that the Pakistani leaders, of late, have started speaking in the tone of confrontation rather than in the tone of reconciliation. They have started accusing India of remaining inflexible, have started threatening to go to third party for arbitration if talks fail, and have allowed a coalition partner to again talk of Jehad in Kashmir. Brifing the press, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, Federal Minister for Information accused (Islamabad - January 5) Inida of remaining inflexible and warned that if this continued, Islamabad too would maintain its principled stand. Simultaneously, Pakistan has issued threat that if talks on Baglihar hydro-electric project on river Chenab in J&K fails, the matter will be taken to world bank for arbitration. In addition JEI member of National Assembly (JEI is considered close to military ruler) Dr. Farid Ahmed Piracha addressed a rally in Muzaffarabad on Jan. 5 in which he said that Jehad was the only solution to Kashmir issue. He advocated for compulsory military training in all schools.

These utterances are not without any significance. These point to probably the emergence of some new thinking in General Musharraf's Pakistani vis-a-vis India that may not be good for Indo-Pak relations. The more the General's absolute power evaporates, the more his leadership quality exposed, he will turn a hawk and will have little compuncation about using violence once again.