It would not serve any cause if we are taken over by sentiment and fail to examine the substantive merits and demerits in these two statements voiced in Indian Parliament
Dr Syed Nazir Gilani
On August 26, 2010 there appear two different versions on Kashmir, a Kashmiri and a non-Kashmiri, echoed during a debate on the unrest in Kashmir Valley in the Lok Sabha (Indian Parliament).
National Conference head and Union Minister for energy and non-renewable resources, Farooq Abdullah (Kashmiri voice) lodged a complaint stating, “But today, I regret that when we open our hearts to you, you don't even recognise us... in every corner of our heart has India written over it. When we brought the autonomy resolution, I thought we will join hearts. But you let me down.” He asserted that it was the time to tell Pakistan “in one voice that it should return to us the part of Kashmir it has occupied and given away to China”.
The non-Kashmiri voice was heard from Bharatiya Janata Party. BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi stated that Kashmiris are demanding secession from India and not jobs or economic development. He slammed the government for its failure to handle the unrest in the Kashmir Valley that has seen 64 people deaths since June 11. Joshi said the government had pumped Rs 94,000 crore into the state that represents "merely one or two percent of our population". He alleged that state was being ruled by a corrupt administration and supported his argument by pointing out "And imagine one or two percent of population getting 10-12 percent from our budget."
It would not serve any cause for the people and habitat of Kashmir if we are taken over by sentiment and fail to examine the substantive merits and demerits in these two statements. However, a politician (separatist), a militant and a member of opposition are likely to be guided by the material interests of their daily indulgence (azadi) while as an independent opinion maker, a writer and an intellectual has his own compass for a guidance. The latter group would take a lunge in the best interests of the people and may have either very little (on balance) or no reference to India and Pakistan.
National Conference leader has failed to take the floor in equity and good conscience in the Parliament. The unrest in the Valley and the consequent loss of life is linked with the State administration and the presence of Indian security forces in Kashmir. The State has invited the Indian forces to protect ‘life’, ‘honour’ and ‘property’. The duty of Indian Security forces is linked to a provisional arrangement signed between the Government of Kashmir and the Government of India. Farooq Abdullah need not wear his heart on his sleeve during his address in the parliament. He is under oath to represent his people according to Law and the Constitution. There is no denying the fact that the whole State of Jammu and Kashmir, according to J&K Constitution, AJK Constitution and the UN Resolutions, is in dispute. In fact it is not the territory that is in dispute but the question of self determination of a people living within the habitat of Jammu and Kashmir (defined in article 4 of J&K Constitution) has yet to be settled.
One may like to sympathise with NC leader and believe him when he said “I thought we will join hearts. But you let me down.” On examination one finds that the statement is an example of bad political mannerism. He has conducted himself in ‘first person singular’. He does not have a mandate to seek to join hearts on his own and joining of hearts should be equally supported by the presence and force of mind. He should equally realise that even the Constitution of Pakistan leaves the joining of Kashmir to the presence and force of mind of the people of Kashmir. Article 257 of the Constitution of Pakistan states: “When the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir decide to accede to Pakistan, the relationship between Pakistan and that State shall be determined in accordance with the wishes of the people of that State”.
According to the Constitution of Pakistan there will be no automatic merger of the territories of the State with Pakistan and the conditions under which other States acceded to Pakistan will not necessarily apply to the State, if the people of the State are not in favour of such application. The relations between Pakistan and the State will be governed by the wishes of the people of the State. The terms of instrument of accession will be determined by mutual agreement. Therefore, pro- Pakistan political leaders on either side of LoC are not free of all punctuation of reason to “join hearts” with Pakistan on their own and without the presence and force of mind of the people.
Farooq Abdullah seems to have his political arithmetic wrong. Indian Government has recognised him more than anybody else in the State. His son is the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, he has a berth in the Centre Cabinet and many of his relations have an active role in the State and the Centre. All Kashmiri political arithmetic has been arranged in his favour at the cost of the people and habitat of Kashmir. Indian Government should have discouraged Farooq Abdullah from taking regular wild leaps in his own favour and incrementing a loss of faith in Constitution, rule of law, democracy and UN mechanism in Kashmir.
There is no harm in reminding Pakistan in regard to the disputed nature of the territories under its control and the part given to China. However, making this demand through the Indian Parliament in August 2010 is not only inopportune but throws the no-holds-barred political authority enjoyed by Sheikh family since the adoption of J&K Constitution on November 17, 1956 on the floor for public scrutiny. Under Article 4 of J&K Constitution and UN Resolution of March 30, 1951 it continues to be the responsibility of the J&K Government (Elected Assembly) to safeguard the territorial integrity of the State. One does not see any harmony or unanimity of interest between separatist and non-separatist political parties on the question of territorial integrity of the State. Separatist have narrowed down their territorial interests to the streets of Srinagar. It seems that National Conference has sinned much more than anybody else in regard to non interest in the territorial integrity and non distribution of the Kashmiri people under various administrations.
The non-Kashmiri voice (BJP) in the Parliament that “one or two percent of population in Kashmir are getting 10-12 percent from our budget” is a substantive argument of interest. It should warrant an instant interest of Separatists and Mainstream political parties. Hurriyat and all other schools of civil society opinion, namely, intellectuals, writers, journalists, lawyers, doctors, teachers, students, NGOs and others should take the question of corruption in Kashmir, much more seriously than the question of ‘azadi’. It is important to point out that ‘dignity’ and ‘azadi’ do not come to visit any corrupt people. The three are not compatible. As regards the question of azadi, the understanding of BJP remains in conflict with the jurisprudence of Kashmir case. “10-12 percent from our budget” and a “corrupt administration” do not stand as an estoppel against the right of a people’s to self determination.
Author is London based Secretary General of JKCHR – NGO in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations. He can be mailed at dr-nazirgilani@jkchr.com.
