Alienation is born of misrule

It needs to be realised that between September 7, 1939 and January 26, 1957, the state ruler and the ruling elites derived their authority from the Jammu and Kashmir Constitutional Act (JKCA) of 1939. The ruler, Hari Singh, had enacted it to mollify Sheikh Abdullah’s supporters. They had been demanding since 1931 the replacement of autocracy by democracy. Though an Assembly of 75 elected and nominated members was set up in accordance with the Act of 1939, Sheikh Abdullah and his colleagues continued their protest. In fact, they repudiated the JKCA of 1939 and declared that they would not withdraw their struggle until a responsible government had been established.

They opposed the JKCA on seven counts. First, it contained provisions which obstructed the formation of a responsible government and facilitated the domination and exploitation of the people. Besides, it was not framed by a Constituent Assembly elected by adult franchise, but by the ruler and his henchmen. It recognised the ruler and not the people as the “fountain head of all essential attributes of sovereignty”. It did not recognise the “doctrine of supremacy of the legislature”. It did not provide for an independent judiciary. It did not grant freedom to the Press by repelling the highly obnoxious Jammu and Kashmir Press and Publication Act (JKPPA) of 1932 under which the ruling elite could seize any press and fine the Press for `seditious’ writing.) And finally it, like the Government of India Acts of 1909, 1919 and 1935, introduced communal electorates.

When, despite their five-year-long struggle, Hari Singh did not introduce any democratic principle, Sheikh Abdullah and other pro-democracy leaders stepped up their efforts. In the 1946 Quit Kashmir movement, National Conference cadres openly defied the ruler’s authority, confronted police, attacked police stations and other symbols of the Government, demanded the dethronement of Hari Singh and the establishment of a people’s government. Order was restored only after the police and Army swung into action and imprisoned Sheikh Abdullah and other prominent leaders on the charge of sedition.

It was under these circumstances, and in the wake of full-scale war with Pakistan, that Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India on October 26, 1947. Ironically, the state’s accession and Sheikh Abdullah’s appointment as Emergency Administrator at Nehru’s behest did not ameliorate the lot of the people. For Sheikh Abdullah, rather than repealing the JKCA of 1939, chose to exploit it to consolidate his position, marginalise his senior colleagues like Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq, Mohi-ud-Din Kara and Maulan Masoodi and put down his political rivals. He also exploited the JKPPA to muzzle the Press. In short, his rule was as autocratic as Hari Singh’s.

It was only during the reign of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad (August 1953-September 1963) that a number of steps were taken to democratise the polity. These included the abrogation on May 14, 1954 of Section 75 of the JKCA under which the Council of Ministers was the final interpreter of the Constitution, the abolition of the largely committed Board of Judicial Advisors, extension of the jurisdiction of the courts of India to J&K on May 14, 1954 and the adoption on November 17, 1956 of a new Constitution by the Constituent Assembly and its application on January 26, 1957. The people’s natural right to shape and control political, administrative and economic policy was recognised and the Press and judiciary freed.

It is thus clear that a return to the `pre-1953 constitutional position’ will grievously harm the legitimate rights of the people of Kashmir. The roots of the Kashmiris’ alienation lie not in Central laws but in the National Conference’s gross misrule, bureaucratic bungling and denial of the legitimate expression of popular will. If the Central Government sincerely wishes to conciliate the alienated Kashmiris, it must repudiate outright any such suggestion. Not only this, it must ensure that Dr Farooq Abdullah provides a clean, efficient, fair and responsive administration. This is the only demand of an overwhelming majority of the population.

Any attempt on the part of the Centre to recognise the National Conference (which got just 38 per cent of the total votes polled in the September 1996 Assembly elections, but won 66 per cent of the seats owing to the first-past-the-post system) as the sole factor in the state’s polity and to accept its demands without analysing their implications would be dangerous. It will not only spark off a political explosion in Jammu and Ladakh and jeopardise the legitimate political interests of the three lakh internally displaced Kashmiri Hindus, but also lead to India’s balkanisation.

The writer is a professor in Jammu University