Scripted to Subvert

Having cornered the Indian National Congress (INC) to clarify its position on supporting the resolution for restoration of the constitutional status passed by the legislative assembly of J&K, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) is on top of its game in the Valley. It has got the politics of the Union Territory exactly where it wants to be: one majoritarian view in Jammu and more than many conflicting views in the Valley. And the party occupies one third of the assembly to boot.

BJP has successfully converted Kashmir from being a symbol to a metaphor. All the earlier regimes, of course the INC but also others like the Janata Dal and NDA, used Kashmir as the symbol of secularism, pluralism, diversity and inclusivity. The BJP changed to make it a metaphor for nationalism, integration, and a decisive walk-the-talk governance.   

Despite a nuanced difference in style – INC disempowered the government of J&K; BJP dispossessed the people -- the substance of their politics has been the same. The INC hollowed out Article 370 to make it redundant, BJP removed the fig leaf. And made massive political capital of it in the elections all over the country. From setting an obviously symbolic target of 370 seats for BJP to the powerful tag line “Jo kaha, woh kiya”, the national narrative has been almost exclusively woven around Kashmir. Not just the past, but in the future as well. It has been promised that if NDA is voted again to power, it will take back Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. 

This despite the fact that the abrogation of Article 370 was the biggest beguilement of the people of India just as Article 370 was the biggest fraud perpetuated by the Congress on the people of J&K. What was left there to abrogate by 2019? 

The three core elements that gave Kashmir an autonomous status was its own constitution, an elected head of state and residuary powers of the legislature. The constitution was made effectively inoperative on 23rd July 1975 by debarring the state legislature from amending it. The elected head of the state was replaced by a nominee of the Union on 24th November 1966. And on July 30th, 1986, the residuary powers were with the state were ended by extending to J&K Article 249 of the Constitution in order to empower Parliament to legislate even on matters in the state list. In fact, making it worse off than other states in the union. True, rescinding Article 35 A was new dilution, even as it was being circumvented with impunity.

Rather wisely, the National Conference had avoided interpretative landmines by using the term “special status” in the motion it brought to the house. Sometimes it helps to keep matters open-ended even at the expense of being accused of vagueness and ambiguity. Let it be clear: the restoration of status quo ante is not there for the asking. It will have to be negotiated, long and hard.  Hence some statekraft is required. 

Interestingly, the same lexicon was signed off by the Peoples’ Democratic Party  in its Agenda of Alliance with the BJP. The publicly available document reads, “…the present position will be maintained on all the constitutional provisions pertaining to J&K including the special status in the Constitution of India”.  No specifics of Article 370 and/or Article 35 A. Curious that they find the same terminology to be weak, vague and compromised now. 

Legislatively speaking, any such resolution, no matter how it is worded, is at best a mere expression of an opinion having absolutely no legal effect. This is especially so after the matter has already come under judicial scrutiny. In the case of Samta Andolan Samiti v. Union of India, March 2020, the Supreme Court of India held that a resolution, such as the one passed by the state legislatures on restoration of the special status, “forms only an opinion in the eyes of law and has no legal effect or consequences”. This opinion is corroborated by both the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Rajya Sabha (Rule 155) and Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha (Rule 171).

Yet, while the resolution passed by the House does not have any legal effect, it is capable of having a political effect. It was obvious that the NC motion which was passed by the house to become a resolution, was drafted fully cognisant of this reality and purpose. It was a foot-in-the-door kind of a resolution, which if appropriately supported by all the other valley-centric parties could have had the Union government worried. 

The resolution for restoration of status quo ante would have become a meaningful legislative agenda not by redrafting the language but by making it a unified political agenda in the run up to the elections. The breakdown of the short-lived People’s Alliance for Gupkar Declaration (PAGD) was when the seeds of today’s legislative dissonance were sown. 

Agreed, the use of the word “concern” in the NC motion was inappropriate as it doesn’t reflect the hurt, humiliation and betrayal that the abrogation caused the people in the valley. Instead of pre-emptive motions, perhaps amendments could have been proposed to make the official draft reflect greater sensitivity and emotional reality.   

Instead, the juvenile one-man-up-ship in the house and the social media blitzkrieg was simply a tactic for subversion of the “official” resolution. The entire resolution drama from pre-emption to redefining was a scripted one with the sole objective of making a mockery of the resolution brought into the legislature by the elected government with a strong mandate. Whatever limited sanctity the resolution brought in by the National Conference government had, had to be diluted and weakened. It could not have been allowed to be seen as the resolution of all the people and the parties. That would have made it a referendum on the abrogation of Article 370. Hence, a charade was enacted to strip the elected government’s resolution of even the modicum of potency of having a political effect. 

That objective has been achieved. It has also been made very clear that there is no “one unified view” in Kashmir. There and more than many. What should have been a single file march and match against New Delhi, was turned into a pitched inter-party battle between the valley centric parties. There is an unprecedented obsessiveness with each other and personalisation of the political slugfest. 

Besides this, of course, the shoves and sledges resulted in two assemblies functioning, a parallel session of the assembly being conducted and another speaker elected. The integrity of the legislative institutions and processes has been compromised. This is also a direct consequence of neither adequately recognising nor explicitly acknowledging, that one third of the legislative assembly support the abrogation. In Jammu, there may still be a sentiment for special status but the votes have been cast on ideological basis which should not have been wished away. The victim should not turn the oppressor. If Jammu and Kashmir has to stay together as a political and administrative unit, the legislature has to be a forum for discussion, and dialogue, not an arena for drama and disorder.