On 5th of August 2019 at 11 am in the morning this country gets a sudden jolt. We get to know that Article 370 of the Constitution of India is being repealed (almost) and the State of Jammu & Kashmir will be reorganised into the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. This is a jolt which turns the history and politics of Kashmir on its head.
As media is reporting, more or less this move has been welcomed by everybody in the country. Still opposition parties like Congress, TMC, CPM, SP, JD(U) etc has opposed it. Leaders of J&K, most of whom are under house arrest right now, have called it a black day in the history of India’s democracy. And despite almost entire country welcoming it I have felt a need to open a bottle of beer and write something after a tiring day in office. 😊
Accession of J&K to the Union of India was different from the assimilation of other princely states. Due to its geographical location and demographic peculiarity the then ruler of J&K had agreed to accede to the Union of India under different terms and conditions. Most of these conditions are codified in Article 370. For academically oriented it is pertinent to mention here that though Article 370 codified the conditions of accession it was not inserted in the Constitution without debate or discussion (as widely propagated by a group of politicians, journalists and their followers). Maharaja Hari Singh had signed Instrument of Accession on 27th October 1947. That was also the time when Constituent Assembly was constituted. This Constituent Assembly had discussed Article 370 threadbare, like all other provisions of the Constitution. Here it is important to bring to the attention of everybody that out of 389 members only one member had opposed Article 370 and he was not named Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, as widely propagated. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee was a member of the Constituent Assembly and like everybody else he had also supported Article 370. Opposition for Article 370 had come from the lone voice of Maulana Mohammad Sayeed Masoodi. However that is not the point here.
At that time Article 370 was a temporary provision. However that provision being so pivotal for the affairs of that State even after 69 years of adoption of this Constitution belies the meaning of temporary. It is understandable that those who had believed in the idea of a unified India were not happy with this special provision irrespective of the geographical and demographic peculiarity of the State. If Article 370 was temporary then a lasting, sustainable provision should have been worked out in the following years or decades. Previous governments of independent India had failed on this front. Present govt wanted to put the record straight and they have done it!
Then why so much foul cry? Why do I feel the need to pick a glass of beer on Monday evening after office?
Let me talk about the foul cry of the opposition parties first.
This foul cry is as hollow, as meaningless and as misleading as the ‘temporary’ provision of Article 370. Congress and opposition is as insincere and as incapable of providing an alternate solution as they have been in the last 67 years since the first General Election of Loksabha. They are opposing because they are ‘opposition’. How laughable! Congress and most of Janata Parties (since JP days) have done the politics of appeasement. They are opposing the repeal of Article 370 not because they have the best interest of Kashmiris in mind. They are opposing because they are worried about ‘Muslim votes’. Despite the astounding success of Indian democracy this appeasement politics is one of the fallacies of practitioners of democratic politics in India. Absence of a Uniform Civil Code in a unified republic after 70 years of Independence is not secularism. Supporting Shah Bano decision of Rajiv Gandhi Govt is not secularism. Opposing Triple Talaque is not secularism. Opposing repeal of Article 370 for the sake of opposition is not a politics for secularism. Politics of appeasement has been practised in independent India in the name of secular politics. These opposition parties has no vision for the social and economic upliftment of millions of religious minorities in the country. (Though their politics is favourable, in the short run, when compared to the politics of hatred and violence of BJP but they have done no less damage to the biggest religious community with their politics of appeasement for votes.)
That’s about foul cry. But why do I feel the need for deliberation and discussion on this? After all I am neither a parliamentarian (the decision makers) not a media person who earns a living from reporting, analysing and criticising such decisions.
This is a question I wish everybody asks himself or herself. I have grown up in an independent, democratic country. My life is a product of the success of Indian democracy. In a democracy, different sections of society with differing resources come together and make a common life out of it. They follow a common rule of law. They live in a unified administrative and governance structure. They have the freedom to chose. I am having beer, unfortunately (today), because previous three sentences are not true for the residents of J&K.
Residents of J&K are citizens of India but, unlike the rest of us, they do not have the freedom to chose – partly because of Article 370, partly because of covert war being waged by our neighbour and partly because of lack of vision and commitment on the part of Govt of India. But this lack of freedom to chose is the most fundamental difference between the residents of J&K and the rest of Indians. Absence of freedom to chose is the absence of democracy.
Unlike most of you, I do not take pride in Kashmir being a part of India. I take pride in living in the the democratic republic of India. I take pride in the process which has changed the lives of millions for better. All citizens are equal in a democracy. But Kashmiris are not equal citizens. You and I can chose whom to be friends with, we can move freely in our villages and towns, we can invite friends over at our place without any worry but Kashmiris cannot do all these things without being snooped-in in the name of security. I agree that security of the unified India will be at risk but if I am a Kashmiri then I am not free and I am not happy.
Today when the future of J&K is being decided, which has evaded any solution for more than 70 years, then a bill is presented in the Parliament of India at 11 in the morning and the House passes it after all the discussions in less than eight hours!!! That is how democratic the life of a Kashmiri is!
Some men (and women) may be wiser than others but how a few gentlemen (and women) have found a solution in complete secrecy to a problem which is so profound! Is this the democracy we are proud of? Call me an anti-national but my allegiance is more towards a democratic living than a map drawn by a few wise men sitting in high offices.
Various provisions of Article 370 were inserted in late 1950s with the concurrence of Pt. Nehru and Shekh Abdulla. We call it undemocratic. Today’s repeal of Article 370 (barring Section-1) is no less undemocratic. If Article 370 failed to bring peace and lasting solution, its repeal will be equally disastrous.
It will be disastrous because it does not embody the will of masses. It will fail because it doesn’t reflect the aspirations of those it aims to serve.
You may ask how can I claim that it doesn’t reflect the aspirations of Kashmiris and other residents of Jammu and Ladakh. Answer is simple. It doesn’t reflect that because it has been designed in an undemocratic manner. The bill says that it has the assent of the government of J&K but in the absence of Assembly, technically speaking Governor is the government but when we examine it at practical level we know that this claim is as fallacious as the claim of genius of Shekh Abdulla and Pt Nehru in drafting the various provisions of Article 370.
A powerful government of today can bring changes in the Constitution of India because it has numbers on its side but these numbers will not solve the problems of decades. History will judge the present government and all of us in the light of the consequences of today’s decision. People sitting on the opposing sides take the stand which suits them but I am skeptical because democratic methods have not been adopted in proposing these solutions. If it succeeds in bringing lasting peace then it will be the biggest gamble in the democratic history of India but there are all the reasons to believe that this will also fail J&K and its residents the way Article 370 has failed. It will fail despite taking, supposedly (and widely believed to take), best care of our national interest. It will fail because it is not democratic. It will fail because it does not reflect the Will of the masses.
Before I wind up I must also say that today’s leadership in the valley is as directionless, as devoid of vision as today’s opposition in the parliament. They fail to connect to masses. They are also doing the politics of fear and politics of petty appeasement. They are equally responsible for lack of any lasting peace in the valley in the last three decades of insurgency. Unless they reinvent and reorient themselves, they will be discarded by the voters in J&K the way they have discarded the longest ruling party in Independent India from mainstream national politics.
These are turbulent times for the residents of Jammu and Kashmir. These are turbulent times for India as a nation. Idea of India is at stake.
No comments:
Post a Comment