Statehood for J&K: Assurances need to be fulfilled
It is no secret that large sections of population in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) felt quite shocked and hurt when August 2019 constitutional changes were effected to withdraw J&K’s special status under the constitution and downgrade the state to union territory (UT). Whatever might be said about the merits and demerits of articles 370 and 35-A, the fact of the matter is that these articles gave the people of J&K an identity and the feeling of a special bond with the country. The two articles had not emerged from thin year, these had been agreed by the constituent assembly (article 370) and by the President (article 35-A) on persistent demand and pleadings of the members of the constituent assembly from J&K led by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah who sought these protective provisions for J&K keeping in view the political aspirations of its people post freedom from autocratic rule and situation in the subcontinent that had developed in the wake of birth of two independent countries, India and Pakistan. The constituent assembly and the then central government agreed to what was being argued and sought by the members from Jammu and Kashmir and in the larger national interest then. It is another matter that the central government through the nineteen fifties and sixties felt compelled to drill holes in article 370 to extend other constitutional provisions to the erstwhile state outside of Defense, Foreign Affairs and Communication which subjects were any way to be governed under the constitution. Extension of constitutional provisions under article 370 continued as and when felt necessary by the governments at the centre and agreed by the governments in the state.
Be that as it may, most people seem to believe that the changes of August 2019 came more due to ideological reasons linked to the ruling party and its long held position on J&K’s special status.
Having watched the assurances given by PM and HM in parliament immediately after the August 2019 changes for restoration of statehood in due course, the people of Jammu & Kashmir are eagerly awaiting the return and restoration of statehood which they think is the minimum they deserve by way of a ‘right’ and not by way of any extra dispensation or favour. Restoration of statehood is also construed as return of part honour.
There are good administrative and political reasons why statehood should be restored immediately to bring J&K on the same pedestal as other states in the country.
The federal structure enunciated in the constitution provides for strong states with clearly demarcated powers for the centre and the states. UT status is envisaged for smaller territories and areas that require direct central supervision and handholding or till these are considered for upgradation to statehood. Such probation is not necessary for J&K as it was a full fledged state for 72 years after accession in 1947 and a special status state for 69 years after 1950. Its downgrade from State to UT was unprecedented for the reason such downgrade from state to UT had never happened before in independent India and such downgrade is also not explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
There is a belief in certain quarters that the centre will not grant statehood so soon and certainly not before first assembly elections post the August 2019 changes. Reasons given for this likely scenario are many, some political and some administrative. For someone who has over the years worked in many elected state governments, one can say with confidence that there are no good administrative reasons for denial of statehood before elections.
Overall law and order, anti-militancy strategies and related matters were and are discussed and deliberated in the unified headquarters (UHQ) headed by the Chief Minister during elected governments and by the Governor or Lieutenant Governor as the case may be during central rule and now in the UT. Among others the UHQ has senior most officers from the army, paramilitary forces, state police, intelligence organisations and civil administration in the state as members. When an elected government will be in place in the upgraded state, Governor /LG will be substituted by CM and for the rest there would hardly be any changes in ex-officio membership or in the way the UHQ functions. And as per past experience of last about three decades, the commanders and officers are free to formulate their operational plans at their level except that they have to coordinate across agencies and forces which is discussed in smaller groups at different hierarchical levels. Therefore, it is incorrect to assume that anti-militancy operations will suffer if statehood is granted necessitating the CM to head the UHQ. Experience with UHQ and anti-militancy operations on ground show gradual improvement in the success rate, coordination and camaraderie ever since the first elected government was installed in 1996 after six years of president’s rule since 1990. The institution has only got stronger and more mature since then. Any retired corps commander or intelligence chief or paramilitary force commander who has been a member of UHQ here in J&K will testify to the robustness of the institution irrespective of who the chairperson is. The record of various CMs of J&K as heads of UHQ has been excellent as the graph of militancy fell continuously from 1996 onwards barring the spurt in the pre and post Kargil conflict and early 2000s which was solely linked to Pakistani machinations. No CM will want the UHQ to be less effective during his or her tenure. None of the CMs has ever come in the way of legitimate anti-militancy strategy, measures or operations.
J&K has done comparatively well on development indices during 1996-2018 period when elected governments were in place, in some cases better than many other states. The officials in charge of administration at the highest levels then also belonged to All India Services and mostly direct recruits. Top positions in civil and police administration were manned by direct recruits from IAS and IPS as these are manned now. So, any talk to the contrary that administration will get weakened or deteriorate if statehood is granted can only be termed as figment of imagination.
Political activity at the grass roots level will get fully activated only when statehood is granted and elections held. An elected government in the UT will not inspire similar confidence and activity. It is easy to understand that electors will feel empowered only when those they have elected are adequately empowered. However, if the elected are not adequately empowered, the electors will only feel frustrated and let down. This will amount to depriving empowerment to one set of citizens in comparison to their counterparts in other states of the country where full fledged elected governments function.
People of Jammu and Kashmir do not deserve to be left out of PM’s Sab ka Saath, Sab ka Vikas, Sab ka Vishwas and Sab ka Prayas. It is time to redeem the pledge regarding statehood made to the people of J&K way back in August 2019 and as recently as June 2024 to strengthen their Vishwas. Let statehood be restored in full, not truncated, ahead of the assembly elections so that a duly empowered elected government assumes office after the elections. This will be a fitting initiative towards realization of the objectives of ‘Jamhooriyat, Insaniyat and Kashmiryat’ formulation of late Atal Bihari Vajpayee and to end ‘ dil ki duri’ aur ‘dili ki duri’ as articulated by the PM himself in the meeting with J&K leaders in June 2021.
(Khurshid Ahmed Ganai is a retired IAS officer of the erstwhile J&K cadre and a former Advisor to the Governor, J&K)
