A study in contrast

This is the time to look beyond the political polemics  of the election time and the way these unfolded in the just concluded first session of  J&K  legislative Assembly of the Union Territory. The ruling National Conference  passed a resolution reaffirming  importance  of the special status and constitutional guarantees, which safeguarded the identity culture and rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

There was hardly any debate in the House of the unicameral legislature of J&K unlike when autonomy resolution was passed  on July 1, 2000 after a week-long intense debate. Whether one subscribed  to the idea of greater autonomy as envisaged by the National Conference in its resolution in November 1994 or not, but that was a healthy debate in which all viewpoints were expressed and heard with rapt attention. It was a high-class debate, which was watched by all sides – the Centre then led by the NDA government headed by Atal Behari Vajpayee, separatists who thought they were still a force to reckon with and of, course the people of Jammu and Kashmir. It was a treat to watch the debate. BJP MLAs made their point of view heard, Congress stuck to the theory of respecting Sheikh-Indira accord of 1975.

The debate  did not remain confined to Kashmir, bout brought in scholarly spotlight on the international affairs. Then Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah made a powerful speech  in which besides advocating the case for  greater autonomy of the state, he revealed what had happened in 1953 and how Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah had reacted with great anxiety  when he  was delivered the news of the ailing Shyama Prasad Mukherjee.  I believe that there are only two living legends  who can throw real light  on those crucial days  which impacted history of J&K. They are, Dr. Karan Singh , former Sadr-e-Riyasat and  Dr. Farooq Abdullah.

This time the  context of the resolution was different. In 2,000, the resolution called for restoration of pre-1953 status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, in which  the government had control over all  matters  barring defense, communications and foreign affairs. Its running theme was that it  would control an all-out war launched by Pakistan through various terrorist groups as the people will get something  within the Indian constitution to deny space to terrorists  and their ideologies. The year 2,000 – though the autonomy committee was formed on November 1996 soon after the National Conference  formed the Government in October that year.  In  the conclusion of  his speech, Farooq Abdullah had stated that despite the fact that a two-thirds majority of both the houses of the state legislature had passed  the resolution, the state  government is open to discussion  on it with the Centre. What happened to that resolution passed in the special session of the legislature – June 25 to July 1- is history now.

The November  6, 2024  resolution passed by the Assembly amidst ruckus will be known for two things  if it is allowed to float in air for some time. One, its content  and intentions, and second the lack of debate. The essence of the resolution  if at all it would get that much attention, is in the lines: “The Assembly calls upon the Government of India to initiate dialogue with elected representatives of people of Jammu and Kashmir for restoration of special status, constitutional guarantees and to work out constitutional mechanisms for restoring these provisions.” In  continuation, there  are significant words: “The Assembly emphasizes that any process for restoration must safeguard both national unity and the legitimate aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.”

Three big takeaways are: “initiation of dialogue with elected representatives”- it doesn’t mean NC alone  as there are 88 members in the House – vacation of Budgam seat by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah who had contested and won two seats – Budgam and Ganderbal, and Nagrota seat after the untimely death of Devender Singh  Rana elected from Nagrota constituency in Jammu.

Second, it  is all about the restoration of special status, and third and the most important is  a must alignment in safeguarding of the national unity and the legitimate aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

All these points reflect an acknowledgement of the positive changes that have taken place across Jammu and Kashmir in terms of change in the lifestyle of the people, their faith in the undisturbed economic, social  and other activities. Side by side, it has attempted to speak of the inner discontent that prevails in psyche of the people, which they expressed in their vote. This resolution  if read carefully  and interpreted in its real legal spirit, it is a call for identity and culture of J&K  like Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh and North-East states. The dialogue alone can bring out what suits J&K in the federal structure in the country of which this territory is jewel in the crown.

Today’s Kashmir has tasted peace after decades-long trauma, help it maintain and sustain it. There is a need to find ways of doing that, and the first step should be to understand and respect mandate of the people. They are in the House to start a narrative and deliver on their promises not in high-voltage theatrics.

Footnote: This is my belief that the BJP leaders in the House could have used their debating skills in opposing the resolution. They had a lot to say, which they could have voiced in the House. There are  some changed realities on the ground, which have often been showcased by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah in their speeches. In fact, the BJP leaders could have said  and amplified that the “restoration of the Article 370 was not possible  not only because the Indian Parliament had revoked it and the Supreme Court endorsed legality and constitutionality of  August 5, 2019 decisions  but because the resolution in itself was shy of referring  to the particular constitutional provision.