First published in Daily Greater Kashmir - 27 Dec 2009
Making cynics smile
Would New Delhi own Justice Saghir’s report?
Arjimand Hussain Talib
If something was to describe the symbolism and the substance of the (Rtd.) Justice Saghir Ahmed’s report, a single word would be apt – casual. The first and the fundamental question that arises is: where the report was supposed to go? To India’s Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh – who had formed the working group Justice Saghir headed – or J&K’s Chief Minister?
There are at least two theories about why the report went to Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah, and not to India’s Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh. One, that the Congress-led UPA government was not comfortable in owning it at a time when it was deep in trouble dealing with the Telangana crisis. There is a cynics’ viewpoint as well: that since the report’s implementation is ‘unlikely’; it doesn’t matter where the report goes!
The second theory suggests a linkage of the report’s timing with the larger ‘quiet dialogue’ process taking place with some shades of the Hurriyat umbrella. Moreover, the tailor-made nuances and the style of the report’s submission seem to provide the National Conference a political advantage vis-à-vis other political forces of the state. Some would even want to see it something of a political gift to the party from the Congress, for something that is difficult to fathom right now.
Ignoring the PDP’s self rule vision in addressing the grey areas of Srinagar-New Delhi relations in the report smacks of callousness, which looks somewhat deliberate. That should have been avoided.
When it comes to the report’s substance, a whole lot of issues surface. On the face of it, its language is mostly non-categorical. The reports recommendation, ‘The question of autonomy and its demand can be examined in the light of ‘Kashmir Accord’ or in some other manner or on the basis of some other formula as the Prime Minister may deem fit and appropriate to restore autonomy to the extent possible’ leaves a wild scope for interpretation.
The use of term ‘autonomy’ without mentioning the exact political system being referred to does not necessarily mean a reversion to 1953 status. Which ‘Kashmir accord’ does it, for instance, refer to? Is it the 1975 Indira-Sheikh Accord, which J&K’s people continue to see the most brazen political sell out?
As the report says, it may be even a political formula ‘that India’s Prime Minister may deem fit.’
The manner the report has over-emphasised on the term ‘autonomy’ has a peril of being viewed as partisan. It has another implication. The report has looked at certain governance issues which by virtue of the 1975 Indira-Sheikh Accord were supposed to be state subjects. Its focus on such issues also serves to strengthen the suspicion that the report has maintained its focus around the same accord.
Like other such run-of-the-mill political initiatives taken by New Delhi, Justice Saghir’s Working Group has touched almost everything: relief, daily wages, centrally-sponsored schemes, constitutional relations, refugees, financial compensation, education, road communications, health, reservation to backward communities, women, scheduled tribes, human rights, representation of J&K’s judiciary at the Supreme Court, electoral system, Panchayti Raj, educational and economic opportunities for the migrants, and so on.
Looking at the format and the terms of reference (TOR) of this particular working group, it is impossible to expect a consensus. The problem with these kinds of formats is that they do not automatically go to reflect the majoritarian aspirations, based on democratic principles. So the kind of reaction the report has received creates an automatic perception and environment of ‘wide divisions’ and ‘disagreement.’ Such reactions also serve to strengthen the theories of ‘complexity’ and ‘internal contradictions’ of J&K’s polity. But we need to look a little deeper to understand its nuances.
Justice Saghir’s working group was not supposed to look at the state-centre relations per se. It had to look at some other issues at well. Whether that was deliberate is debatable. The working group’s TOR had a specific mention about looking at ‘autonomy, self rule, regional imbalances and backward areas and democracy, secularism and rule of law’. But why all this?
The other four Working Groups, which had submitted their reports in April, 2007 had a broad canvass, which could have easily included the issues other than centre-state relations. The TOR of those four working groups included ‘Strengthening Relations Across LoC’, ‘Confidence Building Measures Across Segments of Society in the State’, ‘Economic Development of Jammu and Kashmir’ and ‘Ensuring Good Governance’.
There is merit in the suggestion that reverting back to the 1953 status does not guarantee resolution of the J&K dispute. The dispute did not cease to exist even prior to 1953. The various accords having been inked by Sheikh Abdullah-led governments with New Delhi after 1953 did not address the external political and the economic dimensions, which remain at the heart of the J&K dispute. That brand of autonomy, inter alia, had nothing to ensure re-opening of the state’s traditional trade routes. There was no guarantee that we would be able to use our own water resources for our economic development.
Saghir Working Group’s silence on the hydropower issue between Srinagar and New Delhi constitutes a grave lapse. Any respectable analysis of Srinagar-New Delhi relations is incomplete without factoring in the hydropower and water resources of the state.
A significant portion of the report’s narrative seems to have been lost in dealing with the issues of ‘regional discrimination’. A lot of its text seems to be a rehash of many other such reports. They were avoidable to maintain a respectable focus.
To say NC’s autonomy formula best suits even today’s changed regional and global conditions would be wrong. For a better collective future of the state it is debatable if re-visiting the past in a unifocal manner without understanding the demands of the changed times would be helpful. It is for sure that self rule is related to autonomy in a wider context. However the fact is that PDP’s self rule vision addresses not only some historical wrongs of Srinagar-New Delhi relation it addresses the external dimension of the issue as well. More importantly, it addresses its economics, which is very critical to today’s context.
Whatever the merit of this report, the fact is that there would be deep cynicism about its implementation. People in J&K are well aware that almost no recommendation of the four other Working Groups has been implemented so far.
So will New Delhi this time round own Justice Saghir’s report? Will it give a reason to cynics to smile? These are some moot questions.
Feedback at Arjimand@greaterkashmir.com
