The Eternal Kashmir Debate

SEPTEMBER 2016 Autonomy vs. Integration: The Eternal Kashmir Debate Sandeep Bamzai Dal Lake, Srinagar. ABSTRACT As Kashmir boils in the past many days, the debate continues over unfettering the State and granting them some sort of ‘autonomy.’ Autonomy is desired not only by the Valley; Jammu and Ladakh are seeking regional autonomy within the same narrow confines. But with the Sunni-dominated Valley holding the entire State to ransom, it stands to reason that other divisions also require to be unshackled. What constitutes this so-called ‘autonomy’ within the purview of the Indian Observer Research Foundation (ORF) is a public policy think-tank that aims to influence formulation of policies for building a strong and prosperous India. ORF pursues these goals by providing informed and productive inputs, in-depth research and stimulating discussions. The Foundation is supported in its mission by a cross-section of India’public figures, academics and business leaders. To know more about ORF scan this code © 2016 Observer Research Foundation. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from ORF AUTONOMY VS. INTEGRATION: THE ETERNAL KASHMIR DEBATE Constitution, as well as Article 370 giving special status to the state enshrined in the same Constitution? Indian prime ministers have spoken of an architecture within the confines of the same Constitution. What is the leverage possessed by the current prime minister? Analysts reckon that the Delhi Agreement was the defining moment in the contractual relationship between India and Kashmir; the seed of doubt was planted in Sheikh Abdullah’s mind that this actually paved the way towards full integration with India and did not grant autonomy as structured in Article 370. The author ponders the 70-year-old Kashmir question, using documents bequeathed to him by his grandfather, who served as a close aide to both Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru. INTRODUCTION For the past several decades, a succession of Indian prime ministers has engaged in a plethora of grandstanding on the issue of Kashmir. To be sure, there are those among them who have been genuine about their concern for the State— most notably, Jawaharlal Nehru, who reckoned that J & K was a ‘shop window’ for his brand of Indian secularism. Many others have promised, but delivered nothing. At the very kernel of the debate on Jammu & Kashmir is autonomy and its polychromatic shades, and how it could be enshrined in the Federal context in terms of contractual relations between Centre and State. After all, India is a Union of States and J & K’s controversial accession is subject to an Instrument of Accession and a subsequent ‘special status’ accorded to it under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Prime ministers have sought solutions, but to no avail—the Delhi Agreement and the Sheikh Abdullah-Indira Gandhi Accord included. Attempts to find a lasting solution to the Kashmir question have all come to nought once the situation had stabilised in the Valley and ‘business as usual’ was restored. Recent history shows that in 1995, then Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao said in Parliament, “So far as granting autonomy to the State of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, only sky is the limit. In this context the Constitution of our country has a lot of room and short of Azadi, we are ready to give anything.” Fast forward to 2016, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi says he is willing to architect a permanent solution within the boundaries of the Constitution. As another All Party delegation left for Kashmir recently, a strong sense of déjà vu is descending. It was in September 2010 that a similar delegation landed in Kashmir after months of protest. Five leaders, including (CPI-M) leader Sitaram Yechury and Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen’s Asaduddin Owaisi, met separatist leader, Syed Ali Shah Geelani at his residence in the curfew-bound city. T.R. Baalu of the DMK, Rattan Singh Ajnala of the Shiromani Akali Dal, and Namanageshwara Rao of the (TDP) were also present in the meeting. Geelani had reportedly said, “We will perish but won’t give up. We have decided we will not surrender in the face of blind Indian imperialism. Talks won’t be meaningful unless India accepts Kashmir as an international dispute.” Another small group 2 ORF SPECIAL REORT # 26 SEPTEMBER 2016 AUTONOMY VS. INTEGRATION: THE ETERNAL KASHMIR DEBATE that included CPI’s Gurudas Dasgupta heard out Mirwaiz Farooq, chairman of the All Jammu and Kashmir Awami Action Committee, who is said to have spoken vehemently: “This is not a mere political dispute... India should look at it as a humanitarian issue. Sentiments in the valley are for freedom, and India ought to respect that. Sitting in Kashmir, we come to the conclusion that the people of India are so ill-informed about Kashmir... Kashmir is an internationally accepted dispute. It is time to call a spade a spade.” The semantics employed by the two Kashmiri leaders was almost identical. THE INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSIOn: ‘SaFEGUARD AUTONOMY; COOPERATE WITH UNIOn’ Kashmir is once again in the throes of an Islamist insurrection; again a representation of India’s polity traveled to Kashmir. The past six years since the last all-party visit to the region have only witnessed the widening of the gulf between Delhi and Srinagar. If the hardliners had been met, like in the 2010 visit, and they had been heard out—then it would alleviate, even temporarily, the woes of the people. Peace may prevail, albeit till the next popular outburst. If PM Modi wants to make a meaningful break from the past, then he will have to lead the way in finding a transformative solution which promises some element of autonomy and not merely provide lip service. The Instrument of Accession itself—executed in October 1947 and under which Maharaja Hari Singh handed over the State to India—had three specific clauses which remain relevant today: Clause 3 : “I accept the maters specified in the schedule hereto as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for this State; Clause 5: “The terms of this Instrument of Accession shall not be varied by any amendment of the Act or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, unless such amendment is accepted by an instrument supplementary to this instrument”; Clause 7: “Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future Constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements with the Government of India under any such future Constitution.” # It should become clear that we are taking the position that our autonomy should be consistent with this document that is, autonomy should be in consonance with the Instrument of Accession. It is pertinent to note that in October 1949, Drafting Committee member Gopalaswami Ayyangar said before the Constituent Assembly: “We have also agreed that the will of the people through the Instrument of the Constituent ORF SPECIAL REORT # 26 SEPTEMBER 2016 3 AUTONOMY VS. INTEGRATION: THE ETERNAL KASHMIR DEBATE Assembly will determine the Constitution of the State as well as the sphere of Union jurisdiction over the State….You will remember that several of these clauses provide for the concurrence of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir State. Now, these relate particularly to matters which are not mentioned in the Instrument of Accession, and it is one of our commitments to the people and Government of Kashmir that no such additions should be made except with the consent of the Constituent Assembly which may be called in the State for the purpose of framing its constitution. In other words, what we are committed to is that these additions are matters for the determination of the Constituent Assembly of the State.” In 1951 when the Constituent Assembly of J&K state was convened, Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah addressed the members and said, “You are no doubt aware of the scope of our present constitutionalities with India. We are proud to have our bonds with India, the good will of whose people and Government is available to us in unstinted and abundant measure. The constitution of India has provided for a federal Union and in the distribution of sovereign powers has treated us differently from other constitutional units, with the exception of the items grouped under Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communication in the instrument of Accession. We have complete freedom to frame our constitution in the manner we like. In order to live and prosper as good partners in a common endeavour for the advancement of our people, I would advise that while safeguarding our autonomy to the fullest extent so as to enable us to have the liberty to build our country according to the best traditions and genius of our people, we may also by suitable constitutional arrangements with the Union establish our right to seek and compel federal co-operation and assistance in this great task, as well as offer our fullest co-operation and assistance to the Union.” The Delhi Agreement of July 1952 was supposedly an agreement between two individuals, Sheikh Abdullah and PM Nehru. After being signed, the Delhi Agreement was debated in the Lok Sabha on July 24, 1952 by Nehru. It was then adopted. The Rajaya Sabha then discussed the agreement on August 5, 1952 and approved it. On August 11, 1952, Sher-i-Kashmir presented it before the Constituent Assembly of the State, which also gave its approval. It was, clearly, backed and authorised by the legislatures of both India and Kashmir giving it a stamp of finality.

Load more