Democracy without empowerment counts for little
Although the Election Commission of India (ECI) has not announced the dates for conducting assembly elections in J&K as yet, it has announced its intent to do so soon. Most political observers opine that all political parties in J&K are likely to plunge into elections full steam and that large number of candidates from the parties and as independents are likely to try their luck at the hustings. This is because these are elections to the highest forum of law making and governance in the UT coming five years after August 2019 constitutional changes and ten years after the last assembly elections held in 2014. The scene would be quite unlike the municipal and panchayat elections held after August 2019 which, frankly speaking, neither enthused the public sufficiently nor inspired much confidence, particularly in the valley where loss of special status under the constitution and downgrade to UT has hurt the feelings of the common people more.
Limits set under J&K Reorganization Act, 2019
While the assembly elections are expected to generate lot of interest and activity, the scenario post elections may not be a happy one as the elected are likely to find themselves not adequately empowered to meet the expectations of the voters. As is commonly known, the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019 has disallowed the UT Assembly to make laws on two vital subjects, public order and police (section 32) and allowed the LG to exercise discretionary powers with respect to All India Services and Anti Corruption Bureau (section 53) which shall not be called into question whatsoever. Moreover, the LG is also vested with the authority to withhold assent to any bill passed by the UT assembly and return the same to the assembly for reconsideration in the light of his message or refer to the President of India/ central government for consideration (sections 38 and 39). The UT elected government will therefore have to reckon all the time what it and the LG can together do at the UT level and what it can get done by recommendation to the central government. Quite often there may be disagreements at the UT level between the elected government and the LG which may lead to misunderstandings and friction, as has been witnessed in Delhi frequently and even in Puducherry at certain times. Sections 32 and 35 give over riding powers to the parliament to make laws for the UT on any matter (irrespective of the list, state, central or concurrent) and that the law so made by the parliament shall prevail and also to make a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the legislative assembly.
Section 53 also restricts the size of the council of ministers to 10 % of the total number of members in the legislative assembly which implies the maximum number of ministers to be 10, too small a number to ensure representation to all sections in the UT having a diverse population of estimated 1.5 crore in twenty districts. Compare this with the limit of 20 % in case of states and consequently bigger size of the ministry leading to more broad based and fairer representation.
In view of the statutory constraints outlined above it is very likely that the UT government of Jammu and Kashmir may find itself frequently stranded or locked in disagreements with the LG and the centre. Such disagreements and possible confrontation coupled with helplessness borne out of powerlessness can come only at the cost of vital public interest and good governance. It is for these reasons that the central government must seriously consider accord of full statehood ahead of assembly elections so that the state assembly and the government are adequately empowered to work unhindered in the interest of the state and its people.
Statehood will be a morale booster and help build trust
Restoration of statehood is important from the point of view of assuaging the hurt feelings of the people of J&K. It is often forgotten that J&K state was accorded special status under article 370 from the very inception of the constitution in 1950, after debate, discussion, consultation and due consideration in the constituent assembly of India preceding the inception. It was neither a one man decision nor a knee jerk reaction. Unfortunately, the narrative about article 370 in rest of the country has not been in sync with the history and background of its origin. Rise of secessionist armed militancy and migration of sections of population led to sharper feelings against J&K’s special status and article 370. The narrative was never countered with facts and arguments. This should have been done by J&K’s politicians and political analysts but that possibly was not done to the extent required and the manner in which it was to be done. It is certainly not correct to link the alleged failures of the successive state governments to the special status because there is no clear evidence to that effect. Even before August 2019, hundreds of central laws had already been extended under article 370 post 1950 with the consent of the successive state governments based on the exigency of situation from time to time. In fact article 370 acted more like the proverbial ‘tunnel’ through which other provisions of the constitution of India were extended to J&K. The fact of the matter is that articles 370 and 35-A created positive feelings among the people of Jammu and Kashmir about the country, that their country, India, wishes well for them and supports their right to have their cultural, religious and ethnic spaces irrespective of the fact that majority of population of the state did not belong to the religion of majority of population in the rest of the country.
J&K’s now abrogated special status came under review on a number of occasions and every time the recommendations were never in favour of abrogation, be it the working group on centre-state relations, one among the five set up during the Manmohan Singh Government in 2006 for normalizing the situation in Jammu and Kashmir in the post militancy period or the 2011 report on J&K prepared by the three centre appointed interlocuters headed by eminent journalist late Dileep Padgaonkar and comprising among others academician Ms. Radha Kumar and former Information Commissioner M.M. Ansari. In fact both reports recommended strengthening of the special status and restoring the powers of the state government taken away from time to time after 1950.
Vajpayee Doctrine for Jammu and Kashmir
Prime Minister Vajpayee’s formulation of Jamhooriyat, Insaniyat and Kashmiryat for solution to J&K’s problems received wide support from many sections within and outside J&K when the formulation was announced by him around 2003. Much may have changed since then. But it will be great wisdom to retrieve this formulation (Vajpayee doctrine) and take it forward. Jamhooriyat means democracy and democracy is incomplete without empowerment of the elected and the electors. That is why statehood should be the starting point. UT status for five years is enough to stabilize the situation after abrogation if that was the intention. Now is the time to trust, empower and rebuild Jammu and Kashmir by restoring its lost statehood in full measure and thereby fulfilling the commitments of both the Prime Minister and the Home Minister.
Khurshid Ahmed Ganai is a retired IAS officer of the erstwhile J&K cadre and a former Advisor to the Governor
