“Grant Autonomy to Valley”

— MG Vaidya, RSS, former spokesperson

An all-party meeting on the Kashmir riddle is over. The outcome will take some more time to manifest itself.  One good thing that has emerged from that meeting is that the entire political spectrum views it as an all India problem and not one that is restricted to the state of J&K only. 

At the outset, I have to make clear a few basic things so that there is no misconstruction or misconception.

1. This is my personal opinion: an opinion of one individual who has had occasion for an indepth study of the problematic state. This is not the official RSS view. 

2. In a way, it is not an absolutely novel suggestion either. I had put it forth in my Marathi book on Kashmir published in 2005, and in its Hindi translation published in 2006.

Let all understand, including pro-Pakistan Hurriyat leaders, that Pakistan has no locus standi so far as the internal political and administrative structure in relation to that part of J&K state which is under the control of India is concerned. Pakistan is relevant only in relation to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), which is under the illegal occupation of that country. This has been our consistent position since October 1947. It was unambiguously reiterated by a unanimous resolution of our Sovereign Parliament on 22 February 1994. 

Now about the issue:

1. We should concede the demand for more autonomy to the people of Kashmir Valley. J&K is not a homogenous state. It consists of three distinct regions: the Valley, the Jammu region and Ladakh; distinct not only geographically, but also religiously, linguistically, culturally and sentimentally. Therefore, autonomy should not be imposed on the regions of Jammu and Ladakh. As recently as 2000, this unequivocal view was expressed by representatives of these two regions at a symposium organised by the J&K National Front (JKNF) at Jammu, where I was the main speaker. The participants in the symposium included adherents of Islam as well as those of Buddhist persuasion, along with Hindus. As a follow-up to the unequivocal resolution passed at this convention, and also as a confirmation of the peoples’ mood, gathered by a fact-finding committee appointed by the National Executive Council of the RSS, under the chairmanship of late Jitendra Veer Gupta, ex-Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court, the RSS National Executive passed a resolution, at its Kurukshetra (Haryana) session in 2002, demanding trifurcation of the J&K state. As a consequence of this resolution, the Jammu State Morcha (JSM) was formed, and it received spontaneous favourable response from the people of Jammu, belonging to all shades of religious and cultural background; even the Panthers Party and a section of the JD(U) joined this Morcha, along with several social organisations. It is a mystery even to me why the RSS compromised its fundamental position by allowing the Morcha to tie up with the BJP for the 2002 Assembly election, which was officially against the trifurcation, thereby endangering the credibility of the JSM. The Panthers Party left the JSM, and the Morcha lost popular support, eventually leading to its disbandment.

In short, the Jammu region shall be a separate state like all other states of the Indian Union; and Ladakh will be a Union Territory as demanded by the Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA). Recently, I came to know that the BJP too is supporting this demand of the LBA.

2. Rehabilitation of Kashmiri Pundit Community

  Before discussing any proposal for autonomy, it must be accepted by all that Kashmiri Pundits who were forcibly expelled from their ancestral land shall have to be rehabilitated in the region of the Valley. They cannot return to their traditional locations. The reasons need not be discussed here. But it is a fact that they were persecuted and hence had perforce to abandon their homes. The exact location in the Valley can be determined in consultation with representatives of the Pundit community.

3. Quantum and Complexion of the Autonomy. 

Let a Round Table Conference (RTC) be convened by the Indian Government of all shades of opinion in the Valley. Exclude only those that affirm their loyalty to Pakistan and desire a merger of the Valley with Pakistan.

The RTC will discuss the following issues:

Dr Farooq Abdullah, under whose stewardship the Kashmir Assembly passed a resolution of autonomy, had explained that autonomy means the pre-1953 situation. But post what? Of course, he must have meant Post-October 1947, when J&K state was merged with the Indian Union by its ruler, the late Hari Singh. 

Dr Abdullah and his party must also be agreeable to the Valley being ‘an integral part’ of India, as accepted by the separate Constitution of J&K state, though it was passed on 17 November 1956 (that is, after 1953).

The Indian Constitution, by Article 370, gives special Status to J&K. This Article is included in Part XXI, which is titled ‘Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions.’ In course of time, under different regimes, the separatist provisions in the state Constitution were eroded. The RTC has to say which of these changes have to be repudiated or maintained. I am discussing only some important changes.

(a) Nomenclature

In 1966, the original names of Vazir-e-Azam and Sadar-e-Riyasat were changed to Chief Minister and Governor, respectively. I don’t exactly know the meaning of the word ‘Azam’; but I infer it means ‘big’ or ‘great’; that is, great among ministers. If autonomy means insistence on this epithet ‘Vazir-e-Azam, I suggest that it be accepted. But not Sadar-e-Riyasat; because ‘Sadar’ means ‘President’, and we have one President for the whole country. There should be no compromise on this. Besides, the Governor should remain to be appointed by the President, and not elected by the State Assembly as was provided earlier.

(b) Appellate authority of the Supreme Court

In 1960, the Supreme Court of India was authorised to hear appeals against the verdict of the State High Court. Let the RTC decide about it. My suggestion is we should accept the opinion of the RTC. 

(c) Authority of the Central Election Commission

At present, the Central Election Commission supervises the election process in all states, including J&K. Let the RTC decide, whether the Valley needs this Superior Authority.

(d) Census

From 1959, the Central laws of Census were made applicable to the J&K state. Let the RTC decide about it.

(e) From 1956, appointment of IPS and IAS officers to J&K was started. Let the RTC know the Valley people’s views on it.

(f) In 1956, Article 356 and 357 were made applicable to the state. These are about the imposition of President’s/Governor’s rule in the event of the failure of constitutional machinery in the state. We should not accept any change in this, because it is our duty to see that the democratic system is well maintained and sustained.

(g) From 1954, central rules of customs, excise, civil aviation and Post & Telegraph were made applicable to the state. Let us know what the RTC wants.

(h) From 1966, the people of J&K got the power to elect their representatives to the Lok Sabha. Do they want this to continue or want their nomination by the state government? 

(i) From 1986, Article 249 of India’s Constitution was made applicable to the J&K state. This Article is about the power of Indian Parliament to make laws with respect to matters in the state-list in the national interest. Let the RTC deliberate on this.

Article 370: It is a demand by those seeking autonomy that Article 370 be made a permanent provision and not included in the list of ‘Temporary & Transitory’. We should accept this.

Many issues cropped up because of the gradual erosion of Article 370. But there can be other points also; such as:

(A) The J&K Assembly passed a law for the reception of refugees that had left this country during the turmoil of Partition days. It is not in operation because of a stay order of the Supreme Court. Let the new autonomous state take its own decision, provided they are all settled in the Valley and not in Jammu region. Jammu already has its own problem of giving full citizenship rights to Hindu refugees that migrated to this country after Partition. These people have a right of vote in Lok Sabha elections but not in the election to the state Assembly. It means that they are citizens of India but not of J&K state. This perversion will be removed after the formation of the separate Jammu state. 

At present, though there is a common criminal law for all citizens of India, the civil law is not common. The Hindu civil code is applicable to Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists also, but not to Muslims. If there can be different civil laws for different communities, why insist on the common criminal law? The new state of Kashmir can, in its wisdom, enact a separate criminal law and we need not worry about it.

During the British regime, there were many princely states. They enjoyed complete autonomy in their internal matters. But a British Resident used to be there to look after the interests of the Empire; and to ensure that the geographical unity and integrity of the state were not damaged. The same can happen in the case of this new state. Our Governor, like the British Resident, will have to be vigilant on matters of the whole nation’s interests. As for defence and foreign affairs, they will continue to be the Centre’s prerogative, as now. Even foreign investment should be under the control of the Centre. 

— These are the author’s personal views

About The Author

Open