Opinion Moving beyond 370

Predictably the reaction has been divergent. Senior BJP leader,and its representative on the group,Arun Jaitley called the report “a fraud”. He reiterated the party’s opposition to autonomy for the state and demanded abrogation of Article 370; other Jammu-based parties,like Panthers Party and Jammu State Morcha had similar reactions. Ladakh’s Union Territory Front leaders decided “to oppose the report tooth and nail”. The PDP’s president Mehbooba Mufti called the report a juvenile act “with no specifics and substance”. The ruling coalition partner National Conference welcomed the report though it fell short of its demand for restoration of the 1953 status of the state.

The entire debate over Centre-state relations has been viewed as Kashmiri nationalism versus Indian nationalism. It needs reframing: instead,discuss it in terms of the interests of the people of Kashmir. If,for instance,the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction had extended to the state in 1953,Sheikh Abdullah could not have been dismissed and detained under any law then in force. Similarly,the financial integration of the state sustains its economy. As long as the state had its own election commission,the elections were known to be rigged; the fairness of elections held now,under the Central Election Commission,has been universally acknowledged.

In the post-Nehru era,drastic erosion of the autonomy of the state did take place. But while demanding restoration of autonomy,a distinction could be drawn between the executive powers of the Centre and federal autonomous institutions like the judiciary,the Election Commission and the Auditor and Comptroller General,which check undue encroachment of the executive.

Whatever be the merits and demerits of Article 370,it has nothing to do with problems of Jammu and Ladakh. When Justice Ahmad quotes official figures to prove that there has been no discrimination in development expenditure with any region or district,he must have known that nothing ensures faster and fair development than empowerment of the people at every level,who through their elected representatives should determine their needs and decide their priorities. Allocation of funds should be based on an objective and equitable formula,keeping in view needs and level of development of a region or a district,rather than arbitrarily determined by the ruling party on subjective and political considerations.

Moreover,regional identity is no less important. If it is weakened,religion-based identities would emerge,which would undermine the secular basis of the state and its unity.

Justice Ahmad is all appreciation for development of Ladakh. But he ignores the fact that ever since it was broken into Leh and Kargil districts — 52 per cent Buddhist and 48 per cent Muslim respectively — communal tensions have emerged for the first time there. First priority for Ladakh should be its recognition as a region within the constitution of the state,as are Kashmir and Jammu,which should restore its secular identity,and give it some administrative autonomy,like the other two regions. The present powers of the Autonomous Councils for Leh and Kargil are no more than those enjoyed by zila parishads in many other parts of the country.

A federal decentralised set-up alone can ensure emotional and political unity of the state. Regional autonomy is the logical extension of the autonomy of the state,as Pandit Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah had announced at a joint press conference on July 24,1952 — the basis on which the Praja Parishad,the Jammu affiliate of the Jana Sangh,withdrew its agitation for abrogation of Article 370 in 1953. The State People’s Convention convened by Sheikh Abdullah and attended by the entire political spectrum of the Valley adopted a five-tier internal constitution in 1968 which provided for regional autonomy and devolution of political power to the districts,blocks and panchayats. In this context,Justice Ahmad’s recommendation for adoption of the 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Indian Constitution on Panchayati Raj is quite relevant.

There is certainly need for a thorough and frank debate on all the issues raised by the fifth Working Group by all sections,which should generate some light also instead of the mere heat it has done so far.

The writer is a J&K-based commentator and director,Institute of J&K Affairs

express@expressindia.com