On October 26, 1947, the reluctant Hindu Maharaja of the then princely province of Jammu and Kashmir agreed, in the face of an invasion, to accede to the dominion of India, following the partition of the country on religious lines.
What made the province stand out was the unparalleled popular resistance mounted by Kashmris, led by Sheikh Abdulah and the National Conference, to armed co-religionist marauders supported militarily by the new theocratic government of Pakistan.
All that at a time when the state had neither acceded to India nor had any effective government or military wherewithal to speak of.
The rejection of the pernicious two-nation theory by the Muslims of Kashmir, barring some complicit groups, marked a sterling act of secular-liberal assertion by Kashmirs drawn as they were to the promise of a non-discriminatory, egalitarian democracy espoused by the national leadership of the day.
That historic resolve (Jammu and Kashmir was then the only Muslim-majority province in the dominion of India) was honoured by India’s constitution makers, who invited Kashmiri leadership across communities to join constitutional deliberations and work out agreed terms of accession.
As is well recognised, those deliberations over five long months resulted in the conferring of a “special Status” on the province via Article 370 of the constitution.
It ought to be noted that the draft of the said Article was drawn up by Gopalswamy Iyenger and Sardar Patel when Jawahar Lal Nehru was abroad in the US.
Patel was to write to Nehru on November 3, 1949, to the effect that he had “prevailed” in persuading both the Congress and the Constituent Assembly despite concerted opposition from some quarters.
Although the late Syama Prasad Mukherjee, founder of the Jana Sangh, did not dissent with the then cabinet decision to grant such status to Jammu & Kashmir, it came to be the position of the right-wing that such status must be revoked if the province was to be fully integrated with the Union of India.
As we know, the Supreme Court of India has recently deliberated on the pros and cons of the revocation of that “special status” and has reserved its order on the constitutional validity or otherwise of the procedure adopted by the Union government in reading down Article 370.
Supreme Court building. Photo: The Wire
Post-August 5, 2019
Since the reading down of Article 370 on the above date, however, a new “special status” seems to have been thrust on the erstwhile state, again without popular consent (just as the reading down was effected without popular consent.)
Whereas India’s post-independence history has seen instances of Union Territories being elevated to the status of full statehood, J&K has come to be the only state of the Union ever to have been diminished to a Union Territory, ruled by an unelected nominee of the central executive.
In other words, this new remarkable “special status” has brought with it the boon of denying to Kashmiri citizens of the republic the “basic” constitutional right to representative governance.
Not to speak of the snatching of guarantees, be it of land ownership, jobs, or educational facilities – such as remain in place in eleven other states of India still.
Even as the establishment claims things have improved by unimaginable leaps in the territory, it has no qualms and no shame in denying the popular franchise to the now-so-happy people of Jammu and Kashmir.
The ruling BJP cannily transfers the onus to the Election Commission of India.
Strangely, despite the fact that all political organisations, including the BJP, insist that they are ready and waiting for elections to a new assembly, and even as the Election Commission has said more than once that it has completed all the logistical requirements (delimitation, voter lists, etc.) to initiate elections, elections do not happen.
There seems little doubt that the real reason lies in the open secret that the King’s party, far from having garnered the goodwill of the so-integrated Kashmiris, has over the past five years only accumulated the chagrin of even Hindu Kashmiris in the Jammu province by acts of utter disregard for the material interests of Kashmiris across communities.
It is a common grouse in all parts of the Union Territory that governance has been parcelled out to bureaucrats from outside the state, who have little interest in lending a democratic ear to the inhabitants.
Those who were once elected to the ULDs and panchayats have found themselves effectively without the funds and clout to shape the destiny of the people at the grassroots levels.
And word is that fresh elections that were supposed to be in the pipeline for these positions are also not to be held.
Understandably, only parliamentary polls may happen, since these are of unavoidable value to the ruling Modi dispensation, come the General Elections of 2024.
To wit, the situation in the territory must be understood to be “normal” enough for parliamentary polls, but not so for elections to a state assembly.
Nor is it at all clear when statehood is to be restored to the Union Territory – questions which the honourable Supreme Court has expectedly posed to the Union government during the aforesaid hearings.
Internal surveys suggest an unflattering prospect to the BJP – that despite having left no stratagem unused to discredit regional forces in the territory (with whom it has formed governments, both in the state and at the Centre through the years), it has not been able to dent the allegiance of Kashmirs in either part of the centrally-administered Union Territory to memories of their own democratic struggles, or to their pride in their rich and enlightened local cultures and historical accomplishments.
Combined opposition
Since the revocation of the erstwhile “special status”, Kashmir’s entrenched political forces have sought to patiently await good constitutional sense to prevail in New Delhi. They have sought to make their case legally to the Supreme Court and use the media to educate public opinion.
Given the unconstitutional enormity of the denial of representative government to Kashmiris with no likelihood of assembly elections in sight, these forces have now decided to hit the streets on October 10.
Many political observers indeed have felt that this assertion of the fundamental right to peaceful mass protest ought to have been exercised long before now.
It remains to be seen if some newer political outfits will find the wisdom to join with the combined opposition to lend strength to the peaceful satyagraha.
That Kashmiri leaderships have waited so long must testify to the stoic faith they have continued to show in the republic’s democratic-constitutional fundamentals, even with an authoritarian regime in the saddle.
Jammu and Kashmir National Conference President Farooq Abdullah addresses a press conference along with his son Omar Abdullah, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) President Mehbooba Mufti and others after meeting of signatories to the Gupkar declaration, at his residence in Srinagar, Thursday, October 15, 2020. Photo: PTI
No Indian government has ever been as immune to criticism as indifferent to public opinion, at home or abroad, as the Modi government until it sees the prospect of an electoral disaster staring it in the face.
The question must be, after all, how much longer can it hope to put off popular representation in Jammu and Kashmir without losing what remaining credit it has for being a democratic government?
And, conversely, how much longer may Kashmiris suffer disbarment from the right to choose their own government, given that no state in the Northeast, for instance, might have shown the quality of forbearance that Kashmiris have?
And, how long may even the most congenial nationalist opinion be expected to endorse servitude for Kashmiris?
Badri Raina taught at Delhi University.