Let’s Not Repeat The Nehruvian Fallacy

We should be ready to negotiate with any group but make it absolutely clear that sovereignity is non-negotiable

ARUN JAITLEY
BJP Leader

ITHINK IT is very important that we understand the background and the context in which the current situation in Jammu and Kashmir has emerged. I am in complete agreement with the historical position taken by my party. I think the basic problem took place 60 years ago. The entire Nehruvian hypothesis in Kashmir was based on certain fallacious assumptions. Pandit Nehru’s belief, which coloured his views on Kashmir, was that since it’s the Hindu ruler of a state with a Muslim majority who has signed the instrument of accession, the views of the people will have to be taken into consideration, something which was not done in the context of Hyderabad and Junagadh. This led to a situation where Pakistan kept insisting on a plebiscite. Secondly, Panditji’s vision on Kashmir was influenced by the factor that rather than the complete integration of the state into India, a loose partial arrangement for a temporary and transient period would enable us to create an environment which would eventually lead to the complete integration of Kashmir into India. That is why the Constitutional provision in Article 370 mentioned that it is a temporary and transient provision. When Nehru was later asked as to how temporary it would be, his understanding at that time was ki Article 370 ghiste ghiste ghis jayega. Now we have to realise as to where this situation has led us.

Pandit Nehru did not factor in the important consideration that Kashmir was a part of the unfinished agenda of Pakistan in relation to India’s partition. Pakistan would never allow us to live in peace with Kashmir. Secondly, perhaps he honestly felt that Kashmiriyat as a concept was very secular, and therefore with the kind of relationship that India and Kashmir would have, it would lead to full integration. After 60 years we need to take a political audit of where the situation has led us. In the first stage, because Kashmir was a part of Pakistan’s unfinished agenda after partition, it tried to capture Kashmir through conventional war. We lost one-third of Kashmir which is now PoK. We had subsequent wars and Pakistan realised India’s strength was in conventional warfare. It then changed tack. Through insurgency and cross-border terrorism, it sought to create a rebellion in Kashmir and internationalise the issue.

Today we have passed through a situation where you have parallel spaces and competing spaces in the Valley, both for the separatist element as also for the national, mainstream and regional parties. Now, one of the main issues at the given point of time is who will capture the larger space. The separatists have a reason now and believe that there are still a lot of people who subscribe to Nehru’s philosophy that it was the right step at that time. After 60 years let’s do an honest political audit and accept that the journey of this separate status has moved to separatism. Also, let’s accept that this loose integration has not resulted in an eventual integration but is resulting in disintegration. So those not possessing the honesty to admit this historical and monumental blunder have now started this philosophy of if we can’t hold Kashmir, let’s give it up. I believe that no society or nation is willing to give up its territory. Secondly, the age and era of redrawing political boundaries is over. And thirdly, 9/11 has changed the global vision and context on terrorism also. Therefore, if there is a movement either engineered through violence or terrorism or other tactics and is led by fundamentalist groups, then the kind of audience they would have got prior to 9/11 would have been completely different. Post 9/11 the world is not willing to look at these separatist movements led by fundamentalist groups. Therefore, even though the recent agitation did manage to acquire a mass support at certain stages, still one of the greatest failures of the Hurriyat Conference was that it could not succeed in internationalising the issue because a separatist movement is now seen differently. The issue, however, is how do you move from here?

The problem in Kashmir is that cross-border terrorism has resulted in an insurgency-like situation in the Valley. When we use security forces and the army to contain this situation — and it’s a global experience that if this goes on for a very long time and security is used even to normalise such a situation — there could be human rights excesses. What follows is a genuine irritation created by that environment. The initiation may be by the separatists or the insurgent groups, but the net resultant factor is that an alienation of population takes place. Because of this the entire economic potential of the state, and the Valley in particular, is not realised People suffer because of lack of security, people suffer because of law and order problems and because of lack of job opportunities. There is also an additional issue: two of the regions of the state, Ladakh and Jammu, have always suffered from a great sense of discrimination. They feel that because they have been strongly nationalistic regions and have never threatened any kind of separatist movement, they are taken for granted. There is a tendency to ignore them, but keep the Valley and its people in good humour, even by going out of the way because there is always a threat of a further alienation of those people. Now, I think these problems need to be analysed. Once you analyse these problems honestly, you will find a way forward. The problem in the Valley is not that there is an inadequacy of power as far as the state administration is concerned. The Constitutional structure of India allows certain powers to the Centre and certain powers to the state, and there are some on the concurrent list. In the context of Jammu and Kashmir we have a very small Central list and a very long state list. Whether it is lack of development, economic opportunities, alienation, human rights violations, insurgency or the sense of discrimination of Jammu and Ladakh, none of these problems are attributable to the inadequacy of legislative or executive power. In fact, the power is there with the state in abundance. But we will repeat the Nehruvian blunder by saying let us give them more power. Therefore, the kind of solutions we suggest have absolutely no link to the problems existing in the Valley. The PDP’S solution of self-rule and the National Conference’s solution of greater autonomy will not work.

IT IS fallacious today to say that the azadi movement has cropped up because land was being given for the Amarnath yatra. Everybody knows that the land was not given for Hindu colonisation. It was a temporary allotment of land meant only for facilities. A façade was created by Syed Ali Shah Geelani that Hindu colonisation was taking place. They needed a pretext for the azadi movement and they used the land allotment to mislead the people. Therefore, we would be repeating the same Nehruvian mistake if we give them a little more power, because maybe that will satisfy them. We must address the problems as they exist. The way forward can never be through compromising India’s territory. In fact, we live in a world where territories are not renegotiated these days. The way forward is to create an environment where cross-border terrorism comes to an end, where the use of security forces becomes minimal as far as the Valley is concerned. We also have to create a situation where the economic potential of the Valley is fully realised and a sense of satisfaction is brought to the people so that alienation ends. We have to make sure that human rights abuses, even when there is a security presence, don’t take place and there is a redressal against them. We have to simultaneously make sure by creating a mechanism that this sense of discrimination in Ladakh and Jammu also ends. If we get into this idea of dual sovereignty, dual currency, then I think we have not learnt the lessons of the last 60 years.

The political problem has to be addressed with India remaining firm — azadi is not a distant dream, but an impossibility. The Government of India’s position should always be that we are willing to have a dialogue with any group, but at the same time, as far as political sovereignty is concerned, indicate that it is non-negotiable.

The mainstream parties in Jammu and Kashmir have a lot to introspect about. The Congress has to introspect whether it made a historical mistake of aligning with the PDP five-and-a-half years ago. The PDP by aligning with the Congress seems to have lost popular support, and, on the eve of the elections, it wanted a pretext which would humor the separatist element and, at the same time, show it as a tough party. The National Conference today is not sure what the elections results would be. I believe that an early election is better than delaying it.

My position has been consistent. The problem arose because the assumption of separate status was based on an erroneous premise. Autonomy itself would be one more stepping stone towards disintegration. •