Jammu and Kashmir in many ways is sui generis amongst our states. It is the only Muslim-majority state in India and as Morarji Desai told Zia ul Haq when the latter promised eternal peace between India and Pakistan if we gave them Kashmir, “We can give you Kashmir today, but will you accept fourteen crore Muslims with it?” When Zia expressed astonishment over the comment Morarji told him India opted for a secular state in 1947 and for our secular polity and society to remain intact it was essential that J&K remained a part of India. If the state breaks away it would prove Muslims cannot live with Hindus and, thus, there would be no justification for India to remain a secular state. Zia immediately caught the point and said so long as Morarji was prime minister he wouldn’t utter the word “Kashmir”. Zia kept his word.
The importance of J&K goes well beyond the fact that under Article 1 of the Constitution it is a part of the Union of States that is India. Kashmir is the result of and the justification for our secular culture. It is not only the territory which has to form a part of India. It is the hearts and minds of the people of the state, whether Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh or Christian, which have to be Indian, with a real feeling of their integration into the vastness of India. There is no denying a strong separatist element in Kashmiri society that would rather have Kashmir as a part of Pakistan than a constituent of India. The Hurriyat Conference is at the core of the separatist group, though there is also a large militant element inducted by Pakistan-sponsored training and armed by Pakistani authorities to foment trouble and violence in the state.
The government in Delhi organised elections in J&K that saw a heavy turnout where people voted without fear. The Election Commission made elaborate arrangements and the security forces provided a cover that kept the militants and other violent elements at bay. The people, reeling under the terrifying floods, decided they needed a firm government, but one accountable to them rather than to a distant government of India. That is what happens in every state election in India. The Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) led by Mufti Mohammad Sayeed garnered the largest number of seats (28) and BJP emerged as the second largest party with 25 seats. In the 83-member Assembly, 44 seats form a majority and the only way in which this could be done was if PDP and BJP formed a coalition or came to an understanding on government formation.
The PDP’s main strength is in the Valley and the BJP’s in Jammu. The National Conference and Congress have their main strength in Ladakh, parts of the Valley, with some presence in Jammu. If PDP alone had formed the government, Jammu would remain unrepresented which is why, to maintain a balance, it was necessary for the party and BJP to come together. There were many hurdles to this, including the question of Article 370 of the Constitution, the attitude towards the Hurriyat and other separatists and the holding of talks with Pakistan. The stand of PDP and BJP was diametrically opposite and, thus, hammering out an agreement that would enable a coalition to be formed appeared impossible.
Ultimately, PDP and BJP formed a coalition. Sayeed was to be the chief minister and a common minimum programme was evolved. In this BJP decided to shelve, for the present, any reference to Article 370 for change of J&K’s special status, PDP was not to forcefully canvass for a semi-independence type autonomy and both parties were to periodically review law and order with a view to denotifying areas as disturbed so that the use of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act could be minimised. On March 1, the government was sworn in and the chief minister thanked the separatists and Pakistan for ALLOWING the election to take place. Did he imply that India is so weak as to be dependent on Pakistan’s mercy to hold an election in one of the Union’s states? He also called for talks with the Hurriyat and Pakistan. This has caused a public uproar.
Is Mufti Saheb disloyal to India? It would appear so, but one must also realise that however ill-timed and misplaced his statements, he was addressing a constituency that has voted him to power. Kashmir is a troubled state and whereas it is irreversible that J&K is and forever will be a part of India, a substantial portion of it is under foreign occupation by a power that seeks to swallow the whole state. The Mufti, while allying with BJP, has to adopt a posture of not surrendering to BJP. If this is only posturing while firmly governing J&K and moving it closer to total integration, well and good. If, however, Mufti Saheb in any way encourages separatism, the Centre must intervene. For now, let us wait and watch how a party with a mainly Muslim following works together with one having largely Hindu support for the greater good of J&K and India.
A controversy has arisen about the release of Masarat Alam who has been under detention since 2010. He is a separatist who has led agitations, resulting in police action to contain them. The CM has been accused of favouring separatists because he has asked the police to review the cases of all detainees. Unfortunately, the media has blown this episode out of proportions. Alam hasn’t been convicted for a substantive offence and his detention was by order of the district magistrate under the Public Safety Act. Articles 19 (2) and (3) and Article 22 allow reasonable restrictions to be imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights and permit preventive detention for a limited period. However, unlimited detention without trial and conviction is not permitted. Alam could not have been kept under preventive detention any longer.
What BJP has to worry about is if its compromise on some of its key concerns about J&K will be deemed by its supporters in other states as abandonment of basic principles for a share in power. Will it be able to convince its workers that a popular government with BJP as partner of a party trying for a separate identity is our best bet to hold J&K together? This partnership of two parties who are ideologically so different is itself an interesting experiment. DMK did not cause Tamil Nadu to secede from India, nor did the Akalis create Khalistan. The long Left Front rule in West Bengal didn’t impose a dictatorship of the proletariat. Provided PDP and BJP maintain their mental equilibrium and do not blow individual statements or actions out of proportion, the partnership can work. If the government can last its full term it would indicate the maturity and deep-rootedness of our democracy. That’s the strength and beauty of the Constitution, which allows totally contrary views to co-exist.
M N Buch, a former civil servant, is chairman, National Centre for Human Settlements and Environment, Bhopal;
E-mail: buchnchse@yahoo.com