“I want to say at once that every step that we have taken in regard to Kashmir has been taken after the fullest thought and consideration of the consequences and I am convinced that what we have done was the right thing. Not to have taken those steps would have been a betrayal of a trust and cowardly submission to the law of the sword.”
These are the words of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of free India. Only a few months past Independence, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was faced with military attack from the Pakistani side. On this language of violence that Pakistan spoke, Nehru said, “I cannot emulate that language nor have I any desire to do so, for I speak for a responsible government and a responsible people.” He took the responsibility of the Union of India, conceding that he could not speak the language of an irresponsible government. The strong principles that championed the freedom struggle were extrapolated to this issue of national importance too.
Later, in the same speech, Nehru confessed that “it was for the people of Kashmir to ultimately decide” talking about the fate of the state. It was in this view that the people of Kashmir were promised a plebiscite to decide their future.
In the current political discourse, Jammu and Kashmir has acquired the position of the most contentious issue in India. No matter where you go, slight mention of Kashmir can spark serious debates. Despite the provisional status granted to Kashmir by Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, things haven’t become better. Recent events only reduce the hope that one could formerly have.
After a week of military build-up, cross-border firing, notifications to tourists and detention of political leaders, the Central Government played their trump card – a revocation of the special status enjoyed by the state of Jammu and Kashmir since 70 years. The Centre aims to bifurcate the state into two union territories – that of Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir. This was done to help people “realise their aspirations” and in view of the prevailing “internal security situation” respectively. Yet there are a few inherent problems with this.
First, the Centre is misusing a legal loophole here. Technically, any such decision can only become law if the Parliament of Kashmir ratifies it. But since Kashmir is under President’s rule, there is no state body to ratify this law, which is why it was introduced in the Lok Sabha as a bill.
Second, a tremendous oversight is also present in the President’s Order regarding the Article. It says that all decisions were made “in concurrence of the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir,” which can not hold true. The state has been under President’s Rule for about 11 months, and leading politicians like Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti have been put under house arrest. This raises questions on the true applicability of the Order.
Third, members of the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha were not duly informed about the bill. As Derek O’ Brien remarks in the Rajya Sabha, instead of being handed over the bill two days prior to the discussion, they were handed the bill for reading only a few minutes prior. Moreover, the Opposition was allowed only 90 minutes to raise objections against the bill.
Article 370 of the Indian Constitution states, “the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon.” But as stated, in the absence of a state legislature, the provisions of this Article were also misused. The article also does not provide for the move of reducing the status of a state to a union territory.
Furthermore, it is horrid to imagine the state of the region. Over 180,000 troops have been deployed in the valley in the last week, with 8,000 entering the region on the morning of August 5. Any form of communication has been cut resulting in the people of Kashmir not comprehending the events. The statehood of Kashmir was reduced to the status of a union territory.
What is worse is the new rhetoric that has taken hold. MP Sanjay Raut of Shiv Sena raised a demand for an “Akhand Bharat” – an old Hindutva promise – by taking Baluchistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir. This is a matter of grave concern constituting matters of war.
The Statue of Unity marks the heroic deeds of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in uniting a number of territories to form the Union of India. His contributions should not be forgotten in these trying times. We should permit our forefathers to light the path forward.