Looking Beyond Politics, Constitution and Law: How the People of J&K Feel About SC’s Decision

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the abrogation of Article 370 has been welcomed by those in the mainland. What about the people of Jammu and Kashmir? A doctor shares his views.

The Supreme Court has confirmed the proclamation made on August 5, 2019 to read down Article 370. This has been welcomed by a majority of those in the mainland. But who cares about the people in Jammu and Kashmir? Though its constitutional validity is still being debated by some well-known legal luminaries, including former judges, the highest court of the country has given its final verdict and it is unlikely to face any challenge. 

Setting aside politics, constitution and law, there’s a human aspect to consider: How do the 1.6 crore people of J&K feel about the decision and the Supreme Court’s move uphold it? Unfortunately, the media is silent on this aspect.

I spoke to many people and their families across districts. As their doctor for several decades and having earned their trust, they spoke their heart out. Their feelings and emotions are summed up in this article. 

After Maharaja Hari Singh’s rule came to an end with conditional accession to India in October 1947, Kashmiris in general have been a calm and content people. Everybody has a house to live in, adequate clothes to wear and enough to eat, and villagers have a piece of agricultural land too, thanks to the revolutionary land reforms by its first Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah. People were happy that they were not made to join Pakistan, and had a reasonably comfortable relationship with India with their identity intact.

The people of the Kashmir valley, the most well-known part of J&K, are an Indo-Aryan ethnolinguistic group who speak the Kashmiri language. The language has its origin in Dardic with words from Sanskrit, Persian and Punjabi mixed together. The predominant religion of the valley today is Islam but it was not so always. It used to be Buddhism, taken over by Shaivism in 9th century. Islam took roots during 13th to 15th century and today Kashmir is predominantly Muslim. Kashmiri Pandits, a minority with around 120,000 population, were living in great harmony with the Muslims in the valley till the unfortunate exodus of some 100,000 persons in 1990.

Other religions like Sikhism and Christianity constitute at the most 1.5% of the population. The people had their chosen representatives, and there were political spaces to express collective feelings. Above all, the Kashmiri identity, which meant and means a lot to a Kashmiri, stayed unharmed. 

Also read: 2023: A Year of Ironies and Paradoxes in J&K

Came August 2019, and the announcement was made; the special status given to Kashmir was taken away. A high and mighty hand of Delhi was all that it needed. All means of communication were severed; people virtually locked in their homes. Their fault, exactly none. And it lasted for months, giving Kashmiris the first taste of the things to come. The legislative assembly was dissolved well before the special status was annulled. Thousands of Kashmiris were jailed and many are still languishing there.

Political leaders were arrested in their homes and all political activities banished. The resilient Kashmiris in the city, towns and villages survived all this, facing serious difficulties including access to high-end medical care. The newly posted bureaucrats, invariably from outside the valley, were made to administer various departments. Understandably, they had very little idea of the needs of the locals especially during inclement weather conditions and difficult times. Acute shortages of electricity, snow blocking roads to the interiors and sometimes even shortage of food items in the markets – these were just some of the things Kashmiris had to endure. People were strongly discouraged from expressing their views on these matters and prompt punitive action was taken against those who did. The local press was severely censored and threatened of dire consequences. This was post-abrogation Kashmir. 

The much talked about development and progress has not really reached the common man. Yes, the airport road has improved, signboards are better and tri-colour lights adorn the roads. But the houses along the roads are starved of electricity. The ‘Smart City’ concept has only translated to changed pavement tiles of some posh shopping areas, illuminating one side of the famous bund on Jhelum and replacing the ghantaghar at the well-known Lal chowk.

There have been some positive developments under the new administration: no stone pelting, no strikes, school and college exams happening on time etc. After the pandemic restrictions were lifted,  a large number of tourists came to the valley helping those directly or indirectly connected with this business. 

These however are half-hearted measures of development. The much talked about investors and industrialists coming to the UT with mega projects, bringing jobs and prosperity, continues to be a dream. Educated, bright youth have a darkness to face with very few suitable jobs. Their parents do not want them to go out to different parts of India as they apprehend harm in a hate-filled atmosphere in India for Muslims. 

Also read: The Facade of Normalcy Exacts a Heavy Price From the People of Jammu and Kashmir

As a weekly visitor to my home in Srinagar, and also to my Heart Centre in a village in Pulwama district, I have been a witness to these developments over the last few years. However, this winter I have experienced the misery of people in Kashmir as the valley reels in darkness. Prolonged power outages and freezing temperatures – just imagine the plight. Understandably, many people want to move to Jammu for a few months. 

The common Kashmiri, in spite of all the developments around the globe, is still dependant on a phiran (a long loose robe worn by Kashmiris) and kangdi (the earthen heat pot) for keeping themselves warm. These products are still in abundant use even after 500 years of their introduction by the Mughals and are real saviours because of a perpetual shortage of electricity during the winter months. 

A fair question, then, is: If there has been unprecedented development in the region and people are immensely happy with the abrogation – as is being propagated – why has statehood to J&K not been restored? Why are there no signs of a free and fair election even after four years of being under bureaucratic rule?

These questions beg an answer. 

Upendra Kaul is a Kashmiri cardiologist. He is a recipient of the Padma Shri and the Dr B.C. Roy Award.

SC Asks AG to Look Into Suspension of J&K Lecturer After His Appearance in Article 370 Hearing

“It is difficult to teach the ideals of democracy to our students in Jammu and Kashmir,” Zahoor Ahmad Bhatt had said in court a day before his suspension.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday asked the attorney general (AG) to look into the suspension of a lecturer by the Jammu and Kashmir Education Department after he appeared before the court in the Article 370 hearings.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal apprised the court of Zahoor Ahmad Bhat’s suspension. He said that the academic had taken leave for two days to appear in the matter and had been suspended on his return. “This is unfair, I am sure the AG will look at it,” Sibal was quoted by LiveLaw as saying.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud told AG R. Venkataramani to look into the matter when solicitor general Tushar Mehta interjected, saying, “I have checked up after having read in the newspapers. What is reported in the newspapers may not be the whole truth.”

Sibal pointed out that the August 25 order made a reference to Bhat’s appearance in the case.

Also read: Article 370 Hearing: SC Told Extreme Examples Are Necessary To Solve Extreme Cases

Mehta argued that Bhat appears in various courts and that there were “other issues”. “Then he should have been suspended earlier, why now? This is not fair. This is not the way democracy should function,” Sibal responded.

“Talk to the Lieutenant Governor and see what has happened. If there is something apart from this, then it is different. But why this in close succession to him appearing in the matter?” CJI asked.

Justice Kishan Kaul said that if the letter of suspension has reference to his appearance, then “there is a problem”.

Justice BR Gavai, who is also on the five-judge bench hearing the Article 370 petitions, said that the government action may be a retribution, ”What happens to so much freedom then… if it has happened due to appearance here then it is indeed retribution,” he said.

Bhat, also an advocate who teaches political science at the Srinagar school, had told the apex court, “It is a challenging situation for educators like me when we teach the principles of this beautiful constitution and the ideals of democracy to our students in Jammu and Kashmir. Students often pose a difficult question – are we still a democracy after the events of August, 2019? Answering this question becomes extremely complex and challenging for me.”

The J&K administration, which is run directly by the Union government, suspended Bhat for allegedly violating the provisions of J&K Civil Service Rules, J&K Government Employees (Conduct) Rules,1971, according to an order issued by the J&K’s Principal Secretary, School Education, Alok Kumar.

“Pending enquiry into his conduct, the delinquent officer … is hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect. He shall remain attached in the office of Director School Education, Jammu,” the order stated, while appointing Subah Mehta, Joint Director, School Education, Jammu as inquiry officer.

According to Section 16 of J&K Government Employees (Conduct) Rules,1971, it is “not necessary” for an employee to “obtain permission for initiating proceedings in a Court of law in matters other than vindication of his official act.”

Section 18 of the act bars employees from criticising the government in “any public utterance”, which, according to sub-section 1 of Section 18, “has the effect of an adverse criticism of any current or recent policy or action of the Government of India, Government of Jammu and Kashmir or any other State Government.”

Bhat’s suspension evoked a sharp reaction from National Conference vice-president Omar Abdullah and Peoples Democratic Party chief Mehbooba Mufti who said that the action of J&K administration was “just the tip of the iceberg”.

“Since the illegal abrogation of Article 370, the people of Jammu and Kashmir have to choose. Either be mute spectators and watch their livelihood, jobs and land being snatched or face the music for raising their voice. It’s a Hobson’s choice laden with deadly consequences. Every Kashmiri can’t afford to knock on the doors of the SC,” Mehbooba posted on X (formerly Twitter).

Former J&K chief minister Omar Abdullah thanked Sibal for raising the issue of Bhat’s suspension in the apex court. ”Grateful to Kapil Sibal for raising the issue of Zahoor Bhat in the Supreme Court. Zahoor is a lecturer who was suspended immediately after he returned to the valley having argued his petition in front of the Constitution Bench against the events of Aug 5, 2019,” Omar posted on X.

With inputs from Jehangir Ali. 

 

After Article 370 Move, Airbrushing Sheikh Abdullah Is the Centre’s New Agenda

Every Indian who values Kashmir as a part of the country owes him a debt of gratitude.

The great Czech writer Milan Kundera starts his novel, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, with a historical anecdote: In 1948, Comrade Clementis gave his hat to communist leader Klement Gottwald, who was standing bareheaded in the snow, making a speech. Four years later, Clementis was charged with treason and hanged. The propaganda machinery immediately airbrushed him out of the photographs, not to speak of history! Ever since, Gottwald has stood alone in the snow. Where Clementis once stood, there is a bare wall. All that remains of Clementis in the photograph is the hat on Gottwald’s head!

In 2020, Sher-i-Kashmir, Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, is being airbrushed; not from the photographs just yet but from the history of Kashmir. The one whose hagiography was once the definitive political history of Kashmir, may soon struggle to find his name in the new official history.

To start with, his birth anniversary is not to be found in this year’s list of official holidays. The police gallantry medals are no longer inscribed with his commemorative epithet. The iconic SKICC has dropped the prefix to become Kashmir International Convention Complex. The Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, SKIMS, too may lose its prefix soon.

Yet the many hats that Sheikh Abdullah wore – that of an anti-feudal revolutionary in 1931, the pragmatic secularist in 1936, the emotional communist in 1944, the egalitarian head of government in 1948, the ethnic nationalist of 1952, or the giant with feet of clay in 1975 — will remain! It is not possible to erase him from history. Hence an attempt is being made to erase him from the collective memory of Kashmiris.

This is akin to “damnatio memoriae”– the ultimate punishment Romans gave to the condemned by scratching their name from the inscriptions. The fate of being forgotten was considered worse than execution.

Also read: Will Farooq Abdullah Speak at This Parliament Session? Here’s What A.S. Dulat Says

For the last three decades, Sheikh Abdullah’s grave is guarded for the fear of desecration. His “cardinal sin”: he threw the lot of Kashmiris with India. The sui generis terms on which he did so, recently reneged, are now matters of irrelevant archival detail.

This one “political sin” has overshadowed his enormous contributions. He transformed the life of every single Kashmiri; be it by spearheading the anti-feudal movement or by redistributing land to the tiller along with debt waiver on a scale that has no parallels in the democratic world.

Every Indian who values Kashmir as a part of the country owes him a debt of gratitude. It was because of him that Kashmir was the only place in the subcontinent where ideology and conviction overruled religion as the consideration for accession.

Indeed, if the Bharatiya Janata Party could do away with the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, it was only because, in 1975, Sheikh Abdullah consented to surrender the powers of the J&K legislature to amend its constitution. He oversaw the castration of the J&K constitution that he had earlier envisioned.

When the erstwhile prime minister of J&K accepted to being the chief minister of J&K, it was more than just a personal comedown. He effectively ratified the hollowing out of Article 370 that had been done while he was incarcerated. The Indira-Abdullah accord notwithstanding.

The aggressive flag hoisting in Lal Chowk by BJP leaders in the early 1990s and the assertive flag ceremonies in every nook and corner of the state since have been possible because he grafted the national flag in the constitution of J&K. Speaking in the state’s constituent assembly in 1952, it was Sheikh Abdullah who accorded primacy to the national flag. In the process, he made the flag of J&K, which has now been relinquished, subservient.

Forty years later in a hugely symbolic gesture, he carried the national flag to his grave; his body was draped in the tricolour. He may have been born and bred as a Kashmiri ethno-nationalist but he surely died an Indian.

Why then does the BJP want him erased from memory? If anything they should strengthen his legacy; not his biological or even his political legacy, but surely his ideological one.

Also read: ‘Kashmiris Don’t Want to Die Cheaply’ Says Former RAW Chief on Absence of Mass Protest

Admittedly, ascribing the salvation of Kashmir to Abdullah did lead to a sense of entitlement in his party and progeny. In this dynastic, if not a demagogical context, the names of institutions, roads or parks did reflect an element of absorption with the self. But there is more to it. Much more, in fact.

A place or an institution named after Sheikh Abdullah is a genuine tribute to the person who initiated the freedom struggle of Kashmir. These are expressions that promote a distinctive national consciousness which in turn helps nation-building. It is a re-dedication by the “nation” that was formed on the foundation laid by him. To erase this that is to distort history.

The fact is that over time these names, SKICC, SKIMS, etc have come to become symbolic elements of landscape and reflect civil sensibilities, social sentiments, and real-life associations. Just like in many other cases.

For instance, the alma mater of most Kashmiris, even after 70 years of democracy bears the names of the Dogra Maharajas; be it Sri Pratap College or Amar Singh College. So does the biggest hospital, SMHS. And the main trading hub, Hari Singh High Street. To be sure, every one of them is based on the dynastic glorification of rulers furthering their personal legacy. None of these have been or are being obliterated.

It is obvious that there is a well thought out plan to make changes selectively to only a part of the inherited past of Kashmir. That too by a regime that neither has a democratic mandate nor does it have popular legitimacy. Indeed, even its legal legitimacy is under question in the Supreme Court!

Changing the name of a place or an institution or an award is not a simple disassociation. Nor is it a routine administrative decision. A political name is being erased for ideological reasons. Indeed, it goes far beyond the individual as also the immediate.

Such changes have a much larger agenda: snap every day’s historical connection so as to erase the memory of the past. The toponymic changes are used as a tool to disrupt the ethnocultural continuity of Kashmiris which is the core of historical identity.

In reality, it is an assault that will, in the long run, prove to be more debilitating and damaging than abolishing the compromised constitutional provisions.

Also read: ‘I Am Free’ Says Farooq After PSA Detention is Revoked, Asks for Release of Others

How can a democratic society grow so hostile to the past of its constituent part? That too a past which saw and sealed the future of Kashmir with India. While Kashmir did become a part of a large entity in 1948, it in no way meant that its own past had to be subsumed in a larger past. The past can’t be rewritten to align with the ideological predilections of the present. This sort of thing is normally associated with tyranny.

This is especially so when alongside erasing of one set of names, is the process of new naming. The Chenani-Nashri tunnel has been named as Syama Prasad Mookerjee tunnel. The city chowk of Jammu has become Bharat Mata Chowk. Another intersection has been renamed Atal Chowk. A proposal is afoot for the Jammu Airport to become Maharaja Hari Singh Airport and the Jammu University to be renamed as Maharaja Gulab Singh University.

To be fair, this renaming is understandable. The BJP is, arguably, setting the record straight. It will be rationalised as the restoration of parts of history that have been purposely or conveniently excluded so far by the earlier regimes. It is epochalism being expressed through place-names to reflect the new Indian politics in its political ideology, behavioural values and, of course, historical figures. While restoring “their” great men in the new narratives of India, throwing the stalwarts of Kashmir’s political history down Orwell’s memory hole is unacceptable.

It is ironic that in the 1950s, Sheikh Abdullah’s person was under assault even as his ideology thrived. Since the 1990s, both his person and his ideology have been under attack. Now, his memory is. All, mind you, from very different and diametrically opposite quarters.

Poets are not prophets but oftentimes are prophetic. Aga Shahid Ali, Kashmir’s very own poet, prophesied, “My memory is again in the way of your history”. Indeed, it is and how!

This piece first appeared in Greater Kashmir and has been republished with the permission of the author.

Centre’s Article 370 Move Unconstitutional, People of J&K Bypassed: Petitioners to SC

Provisions of Article 370, which gave special status to the erstwhile state of J&K, were read down by the Centre on August 5.

New Delhi: The Centre’s decision to read down Article 370 was “unconstitutional” since people of Jammu and Kashmir were “bypassed”, one of the petitioners told the Supreme Court, which on Tuesday commenced hearing on a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the government’s August 5 move.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice N.V. Ramana was told by the petitioners that any proposal for altering the constitutional status of the erstwhile state should emanate from citizens there and the Centre’s move was violative of the constitution as orders were passed in “disregard of consent” of people of J&K.

Provisions of Article 370, which gave special status to the erstwhile state of J&K, was read down by the Centre on August 5.

A number of petitions have been filed in the matter including that of private individuals, lawyers, activists, and political parties and they have also challenged the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019, which splits J&K into two union territories – Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.

Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for bureaucrat-turned-politician Shah Faesal, Shehla Rashid and other petitioners, said that Jammu and Kashmir was under President’s Rule from December 19, 2018, till October 31 this year and “will of the people” was not there in the concurrence given by state for abrogation of provisions of Article 370.

Also read: On Human Rights Day, Over 500 Signatories Express Solidarity With Kashmir

He told the bench, also comprising Justices S.K. Kaul, R. Subhash Reddy, B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant, that powers of the President and Parliament during a period of proclamation under Article 356 is in its very nature “temporary” and it cannot be used to bring “irreversible” constitutional changes.

“The record indicates that neither the President nor the Governor held any consultations on the issue either with the public at large or with members of the legislative council,” Ramachandran said in his outline of submissions which was handed over to the bench.

“The concurrence ought to be set aside for violating Article 14 of the Constitution for non-consideration of relevant factors and for not giving a hearing to affected parties – including the people of Jammu and Kashmir,” he said.

Ramachandran said, “The will of the people finds no expression in the concurrence of the government of the State provided by the Governor, who is merely substituting for a popularly elected government as an emergency measure under Article 356 of the Constitution.”

Referring to Constitutional provisions, he said law made by Parliament for a state which is under President’s rule is “reversible” if the elected government later finds it to be bad and it can be repealed by subsequent law.

The dilution of Article 370 of the Constitution has raised concerns worldwide about human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir. Photo: Reuters/Danish Ismail.

“The Constitutional order (abrogating provision of Article 370) was unconstitutional as it bypassed the people of Jammu and Kashmir,” he said.

He said the Reorganisation Act 2019, is “manifestly ultra vires” the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir “which not only recognises and mandates the status of Jammu and Kashmir as a state but also defines its territory under Article 4”.

Regarding the concurrence given by the state, he said Governor is the representative of Union and his concurrence would not represent the will of the people.

“The strength of sovereignty lies with the people,” he said, adding, “Moreover, the recommendation made by Parliament on behalf of the Constituent Assembly of the state (and by implication, Legislative Assembly of the state) is undemocratic not only for want of will of the people of the state but also undemocratic for want of public reason.”

He argued that when a legislative process is “rushed through” in such a manner, can there be a presumption of constitutionality attached to it.

“The haste and the perfunctory nature of the proceedings in Parliament of a change of this nature clearly violate the principle of deliberative democracy,” he said.

Also read: Kashmir: Without the Internet, Students Struggle to Fill Forms for Entrance Exams

Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, told the apex court that Ramachandran has made an “incorrect statement” by saying that the reorganisation Bill was not shown to any member of the Lok Sabha and was circulated only after its introduction.

“He says that a copy of the bill was not shown to members of the Lok Sabha. He cannot make an incorrect statement like this,” Venugopal said.

However, Ramachandran said he would clarify this on Wednesday when the bench would hear further arguments in the matter.

At the outset, Ramachandran said he would first refer to the instrument of accession followed by the Constitution of India, and its application to J&K and Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.

Later in his arguments, he referred to the historical background of how Kashmir came into being and also told the bench about how various princely states were assimilated into India through instruments of accession.

“My brother (Justice S.K. Kaul) has a family tree going back by 500 years. It is interesting,” said Justice Ramana.

Ramachandran said that in India, a state has never been reorganised while it was under President’s rule except once when the states of Punjab and Haryana were created.

Regarding the Reorganisation Act 2019, he said it was in violation of the Constitutional provision as “the character of a state cannot be extinguished in its entirety into two union territories.”

“If the impugned Constitution orders and impugned Act are upheld, India can be reduced to a ‘Union of Union Territories’ merely by parliamentary legislation, which is neither permitted by the text nor the spirit of the Constitution,” he said in his submissions.