The Narendra Modi government’s action in abrogating Article 370 of the Constitution is reminiscent of the precipitous “demonetisation” exercise that marked the downturn of the economy, which still shows no sign of looking up. The sudden bifurcation of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union territories (UTs) of J&K and Ladakh effectively means liberating Ladakh from the troubled state, but leaving behind a union of two very dissimilar regions, one mostly Muslim and the other mostly Hindu. It will only end up making a bad situation worse.
In the debate over the scrapping of Articles 370 and 35A of the Constitution and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill 2019 in the Rajya Sabha on Monday, home minister Amit Shah in his speech said: “I want to tell the people of J&K what damage 370 and 35A did to the state. It’s because of these sections that democracy was never fully implemented, corruption increased in the state, that no development could take place.”
It is ironical that to enable the full implementation of “democracy”, the Narendra Modi government and its home minister had to put two chief ministers elected by the people of the state through the democratic process under arrest, impose Section 144 CrPC prohibiting the gathering of four or more persons, mobilise an unprecedented number of armed personnel in J&K, especially in the Kashmir Valley, and block the Internet, mobile phones and even landlines to keep the people of the state in the dark about the amendments that would change their lives. This is quite an unusual way to enable “fully implemented democracy”!
The abrogartion of Articles 370 and 35A will have far-reaching and diverse ramifications. While some constitutional experts claim that the repeal of Article 370 would technically and legally jeopardise the very basis of Kashmir’s accession to India, those supporting the abrogation claim that Article 370, which granted special status to J&K, was in any case a temporary provision as it is listed under Part XXI of the Constitution, titled “Temporary, transitional and special provisions", and Article 370 is categorised as a “temporary provision with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. Leaving aside the legalities, which will be better judged by the Supreme Court as the measure is certain to be challenged, the way in which the entire drama unfolded is a total subversion of democracy.
A radical constitutional amendment without any consultation with the stakeholders, despite the governor of J&K assuring on record that no major constitutional change was on the cards; a total disregard for the people of the state and the political leaders who represent them; bifurcating the state and reducing its powers is nothing but an assault on the federal structure envisaged in our Constitution. Today it is J&K, tomorrow it could be any other state in India. The modus operandi of the government by first dissolving the elected state Assembly and imposing President’s Rule, thus ensuring that the powers of the state Assembly were assumed by Parliament; then using its brute majority within Parliament to bulldoze legislation that may turn states into Union territories and reduce their power substantially -- is a dangerous precedent that reeks of authoritarianism. As pointed out by former Union minister P. Chidambaram in his speech in Parliament, what stops any future government from applying the same procedure to weaken and dismember other states, be it West Bengal, Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra? What would stop a dictotarial government wanting to create vassal states subservient to the Centre rather than being equal and empowered partners for nation-building?
Kashmir is in turmoil and the abrogation of Article 370 or abolition of Article 35A without first creating normality in the region is adding fuel to the fire. Article 35A gave powers to the J&K legislature to define “permanent residents” and provide special rights and privileges to them, including the right to buy land and property. Abolition of Article 35A is seen by many Kashmiris as a ploy to change the demography of the region, whereas the government’s argument is that it will facilitate investments in Kashmir and is a step towards fully integrating Kashmir with the rest of the country by allowing others to settle there. Article 35A did not prevent Kashmiri Pandits from returning to their homeland. So why didn’t they return? It was not any law that prevented their return and settling down in Kashmir, but the fear of terrorism, the fear of violence that could erupt any moment, in which they might well be specially targeted. Unless terrorism is curbed and some semblance of peace returns to the Valley, no withdrawal or creation of new laws will make people want to go and settle in a strife-ridden place. Which businessman would want to invest in a place where the shadow of violence looms large over everyday existence? Who will want to risk their lives and property? Article 35A has ceased to exist, but till the violence ceases to exist, terrorist attacks cease to exist, and the frequent battles between the security forces and local youth cease to exist and normality is back in the Valley, repealing Article 35A would remain useless and ineffective.
The international repercussions of the move are yet to be seen. Pakistan will of course try to take full advantage of the situation. It will try to internationalise the issue, as it has been doing at every UN session, in every possible platform, and will perhaps seek UN or third-party intervention, in complete contrast to India’s position, that Kashmir is a bilateral issue and it would not allow any third-party intervention. It will take immense diplomatic skills on the part of the Indian government to keep the situation under control and in India’s favour.
The stated objective of the November 2016 demonetisation was to curtail black money, flush out counterfeit cash and curb terrorism. It failed on all these fronts. For the sake of the people of Kashmir, and the unity and integrity of India, let’s hope this is not another political misadventure by the Modi government that could lead to unforeseen and dangerous consequences for India if it fails. The tragedy of Kashmir is that in this battle, there is no winner. Neither the average Kashmiri residing in the Valley, or the ones forced to leave. Neither the stone-pelting boys losing the golden years of their youth, nor the valiant soldiers of our security forces laying down their lives in the call of duty. Neither the frenzied calls for “azadi” nor the shortsighted macho policies and politics of an arrogant government will solve the Kashmir problem. The Kashmir issue can only be resolved through confidence-building measures for the local populace on the lines of the late Atal Behari Vajpayee’s doctrine of “Insaniyat, Jamhooriyat and Kashmiriyat”.
