Renewed Demands for Autonomy in Kashmir: An Analysis

10 Apr, 2000    ·   347

Dr. Subhash Kapila argues that the accession is final and non-negotiable and there exists no space, politically or constitutionally for discussion of autonomy or special status for J & K
Dr. Subhash Kapila
The demands of the Muslims of the Kashmir valley for independence as distinct from the populace of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) has become a feature of the scene. The external aid and prompting for this demand by Pakistan and a couple if Middle East countries known. However, the demand for autonomy and reversal to the pre-1952 status, increasingly resurrected J &K.

 

 

These protagonists have enlisted the support of the members of the liberal fraternity in New Delhi , including those in academia. Their argument is that conceding autonomy to J & K would neutralize the demands for Kashmir independence and reinforce India 's stand that Kashmir is an internal issue. 

 

 

The arguments are rather simplistic and have no relevance to ground realities. The chief argument against the autonomy demand made out by the State Autonomy Committee is that it is not supported by the Jammu and Ladakh regions. Besides there are historical, legal, political and social factors which militate against the special status sought for J & K .

 

 

The Case Against Autonomy

 

 

Historically, the following factors need to be recollected

 

 

1. The J & K state's accession to India in 1947 was no different from that by other princely states of India . 

 

 

2. The Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh was neither under duress nor did it incorporate any terms for according special status to J & K.

 

 

3. Accession to India was made by the Maharaja on the lapse of paramountcy. This was not to be determined or dictated by the population of the state with riders. 

 

 

4. If Sikkim , which did enjoy special treaty rights with British India , was incorporated into the Indian Union like any other state there is no justification for any special status or autonomy for J & K.

 

 

Constitutional and legal factors also militate against demands for autonomy and special status. The following points cannot be disregarded:

 

 

1. The heading of Article 370 of the Constitution reads "Temporary Provisions with Respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir ." The provisions were not intended to be permanent. Article 371 (A to H) in respect of North Eastern Status, are classified under Gujarat , Andhra etc. The authors of the Constitution envisioned the full integration of J & K into the Indian Union like other states; hence the use of the term 'temporary' i.e. till normalcy was restored.

 

 

2. The unanimously passed Special Resolution of the Parliament on J & K (including PoK) final and non-negotiable. Implicit in this Resolution is the fact that J & K is an integral part of the Indian Union, with no claims to special status or autonomy. 

 

 

The socio-political factors that cannot be over-looked are: 

 

 

1. J & K state is not just the Kashmir Valley . Nor is the Valley representative of the entire state. The demands for an autonomous J & K State or even independence emerges from the Valley and that too from a small section. It is not supported by the entire state.

 

 

2. The demands for autonomy are made by the Valley Muslims . No such demands are echoed by either the Shia Muslim of Ladakh or the Muslims of the Jammu region.

 

 

The ruling political elite was not oblivious of the above factors, and in a wily and mischievous bid sought to neutralise them through the Regional Autonomy Committee report to divide the state into eight regions on communal ethno-religious lines-a formulation more divisive then even the two nation formulation of the Muslim League for the partition of India. It amounts to a Muslim communalisation of the J & K state to neutralise the voice of the larger regions of Jammu and Ladakh.

 

 

Surely the liberal fraternity in New Delhi could not be blind to the implications of such moves. The security aspects are evident and do not require pointing out up.

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

The situation in J & K today reveals the stark reality that it is neither insurgency nor militancy as there is limited indigenous involvement. What exists there is nothing short of a state of war being waged by Pakistan by using Islamic fundamentalist mercenaries to undo the accession of J & K State to the Indian Union. Since the accession is final and non-negotiable no space exists politically or constitutionally for discussion of autonomy or special status for J & K. Such demands are misplaced and unrealistic. 

 

 

 

 

 

POPULAR COMMENTARIES