Statehood for J&K is not a zero-sum game
The day is approaching when Jammu and Kashmir was declared as Union Territory six years ago. Its statehood was dismantled. This anniversary coincides with the abrogation of Article 370.
The Article 370, it was told, was a threat to national security and the simultaneous action of division of the state was also manifestation of the same perception.
In these six years, two issues have surfaced up vis-à-vis statehood. There is a repeated reference to the August 6, 2019 speech of Union Home Minister Amit Shah in Lok Sabha when he promised statehood to the UT of J&K at an “appropriate time.” Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated it a number of times that he does what he promises. He also promised statehood to J&K at “right time.”
Second, it was believed that the Centre, through its counter-terrorism operations, and infrastructural development will normalize the situation and return the statehood. The clock and the needles were under Central’s control.
A chronology was rolled out: first delimitation, then Assembly polls, to be followed up by statehood at an appropriate time. This calendar had two aspects – deadline and assessment of the situation. It was shorthand for people-centric approach. Delimitation Commission submitted its report in May 2022.
And, it was the Supreme Court of India that set deadline for the elections - September 30, 2024. The process, however, was completed on October 8, 2024, brightening the hopes for return for statehood.
Congress has hit streets to demand statehood, reminding the Centre of its promise with an emphasis that J&K is a unique example of being downgraded to UT from a state. It is pleading for the statehood with its logic and arguments. The party’s campaign has caught attention, but it is finding it hard to comprehend NC’s politics of prestige on the issue.
The ruling NC, as per its claim, is finding it difficult to deliver on its electoral promises without having complete control over the state of affairs - that is statehood alone will enable it to deliver. It is looking up to Centre and is firm that it would not go for confrontation with Delhi on this or any other issue.
Jammu and Kashmir is not used to dual-power system. It is becoming a big issue and it has not only strained relations between the institutions, but impacting the psyche of the people. They are at the verge of losing faith in the system; suffering from the new governance’s silent battlefields.There is more of a blame game than mutual understanding.
The mention of Apni Party is critical to this narrative. It made statehood as an issue and took it up with the Centre, when Kashmir was reeling under silence and looked at Delhi with distrust. Apni Party was the first to raise the issue of restoration of the statehood.
It achieved two things, though the end result is not in sight as yet. One, it brought the statehood in the center of the narrative when others saw it as inevitable, given the Centre’s word. The party also told Delhi and Srinagar that bridges can be rebuilt by being realistic.
But now, the problem is becoming a full-blown crisis. The people are not getting their works done. They are feeling let down by the powers that be. It is now being reduced to a zero-sum game, in which the whole concept is weighed in terms of gains and losses. It is being projected that the return of full statehood is having deep risks for the national security. The political government cannot be trusted with the law and order machinery in a territory like J&K where Pakistan has not given up its trouble-making attempts. Somewhere, there is a perceived fear that political government is prone to pressures and hesitates in taking strong action against the miscreants and separatist minded people.
This theory is driven by dangers that Pakistan poses, which the government in J&K cannot neutralize. The Pahalgam incident of April 22 in which 26 civilians, mostly tourists, were left dead – is cited as evidence. This is not the case. The elected government has no powers, whatsoever, on security matters and law and order.
The issue of the statehood should not be made a zero sum game; that fulfilling the demand of J&K for statehood is a loss to the Centre, nor does it mean that the statehood can be an absolute gain for the elected government. This will only add to their responsibility, which they will have to shoulder. A new and pragmatic approach is needed.
A fundamental rule in securing the national security is to make it organic. It cannot be planted. It needs to grow from within. If Pahalgam is the consideration, there is a need to revisit the whole incident and its genesis – both in terms of external and internal dimensions. There is absolutely no doubt that the whole planning for the terror attack was done across the border, but it was executed on the soil of Kashmir.
In retrospect, Chief Minister Omar Abdullah’s statement in the special session of the Assembly that he would not call for restoration of the statehood just because Pahalgam has happened, had its national and international dimensions. A wide lens prism would have revealed that it was not a withdrawal but a message to the world that J&K stands with the Indian nation. It yet again rejected the two-nation theory that Pakistan army chief Gen. Asim Munir had re-invoked on April 15.
At this stage, the pragmatic way out is very simple. J&K and the Centre should be open to each other’s concerns. These issues can be sorted out through discussions. All parties must put their act together and approach Centre with their areas of concern and the opportunities that statehood would offer to Delhi. Or, Delhi should invite all the groups to share its thoughts and proposed action in this regard.
BJP, with 28 MLAs, should also come on board. The party is losing as much as others in the UT. Their MLAs are finding themselves in as much tight spot as from other parties. It should be understood that statehood is not a zero-sum game where one side’s gain is loss for the other. The discussions with mutual respect and understanding can deliver a positive direction on the issue.
