09 L N Raina Op-KS-01061992   Greater Autonomy-Where Would it Lead? Thank You Mr Surjeet

The sympathetic comment on the plight of the Kashmiri migrants in Mr. Harkishan Singh Surjeet's article in the Hindu of 6th June was music to an average Kashmiri. No one among the national leadership, with the honourable exception of the BJP, has so far spoken in such moving terms about the plight of these hapless people who have been the bulwark of Indian nationalism and secularism in the Valley and have suffered for it. The said write-up is a correct presentation of the factors which brought ruin to the once happy Valley of Kashmir.

One cannot, however, help to disagree with the solution prescribed that is granting more autonomy to the State, as if there was not too much of it already.

From the days of Sheikh Abdullah's first stint as 'Prime Minister' of the State in the early fifties, Jammu & Kashmir has been enjoying absolute autonomy. It had been independence, except in name. And this independence to do anything the State Government wished without being challenged from any quarter has brought the Valley to this pass.

Sheikh's Covert Duplicity

The Sheikh was not as simple and straight- forward a person as he was made out to be. He would say one thing in Kashmiri to the large captive audiences during Friday prayers and another thing for the consumption of the Indian leadership. He was, however, caught at this game by none other than Maulana Azad himself. He was nursing other ideas for his Kashmir than being yet another State of the Indian Union.

The moment he got wind that the Americans were not averse to carving out an independent State of Jammu & Kashmir, he began to pick up a quarrel over one trumped up charge or another with the Central leadership. This bewildered Nehru as well as his colleagues, Azad and Kidwai. The more they tried to reason with him and see what had irked him, the more adamant he became and slighted them in public at various Friday gatherings where he instigated the Muslim mobs against the Government of India.

This was only a play to enact the final fiat-the declaration of independence-which was thwarted by the timely action of his disillusioned colleagues, Bakshi and Sadiq.

Both these politicians tried to bring the State back to normalcy in line with the ideals of the Indian Union and a few select provisions were introduced in the State's Constitution, such as, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Election Commission etc. etc., not to oblige the Central Government but to benefit the people of the State. Would anyone suggest that these are the restraints on the State's autonomy which need to be done away with to pander to the ego of Kashmiri leadership?

Except for the functioning of these institutions, after the exit of Sheikh Abdullah, autonomy of the State Government increased rather than diminished and this autonomy was abused for personal ends by various political leaders, be they of the National Conference or the National Congress. It is well- known how they debased politics in the State; fraud, favouritism, nepotism and communalism reigned supreme.

Funds Flow

The Centre was constantly coerced on one plea or the other to shell out hundreds of crores ostensibly for development schemes but actually to keep the Muslim leadership from looking towards Pakistan with wistful eyes. And all these crores went to the Valley to the exclusion of Jammu and Ladakh which claim roughly 40% of population and 70% of the area of the State.

In the later part of the seventies, three things happened almost simultaneously which had a profound influence on the course of events culminating in the current debacle, One, Sheikh Abdullah decided to re-enter Kashmir politics after having tried his best to interest Pakistan as a confede- rate of India, Pakistan and Kashmir, two, Pakistan decided to foment trouble in Kashmir, and three, petrodollars started trickling and finally flooding Kashmir to promote fundamentalism.

Sheikh Abdullah headed the State Government not because he had made peace with Indian leadership, but on the persuasion of Mirza Afzal Beg that he should secure his goal by means other than those he had adopted till then. The urge to secure not only independence for his State but also to avenge the frustration and incarceration he suffered since the early fifties was, thus, reinforced. He started his old game of speaking one thing in Kashmiri to his audience to inflame them against India and another to the Indian leadership.