DO READ IT PL AND COMMENT REGARDS. The state as an entity Should Jammu & Kashmir continue as a single state? SPECTRUM AATIF AHMAD MEHJOOR SmallerDefaultLarger There has recently been a renewal in interest in the debate about the best model for solving the Kashmir dispute. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah suggested in an interview with a British newspaper that the models of devolution and autonomy adopted by the British Government in Northern Ireland and Scotland could offer a way out. This is a welcome statement on a topic that had until now remained confined to the framework of pre-1953 autonomy. There are many models of self-government and pre-1953 autonomy is not the only one. In fact, when the Kashmir Study Group came up with their proposals for an autonomous Kashmiri state, they suggested that many different models around the world could be looked at for inspiration, such as the Andorra model or Hong Kong. That said, logic dictates that we must first understand the internal political dynamics within Jammu and Kashmir State before we can come up with any particular model of autonomy. A final settlement of the Kashmir dispute ought to be preceded by internal restructuring of the former princely state on both sides of the Line of Control. Jammu and Kashmir as a state had only existed for a century prior to 1947: it did not really have any long political existence to justify its continuation as a single entity, nor was there much interaction between its different peoples. Following independence in 1947, princely states have not been accorded any sanctity by either India or Pakistan, who have absorbed them into larger provinces and states. There is no reason why Jammu and Kashmir, as an entity, must be treated as sacrosanct and immune from reorganisation, especially given that the State is already divided. On the Pakistani side, the state has been divided into two entities: the so-called Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan. The former has its own ostensibly autonomous government. Gilgit-Baltistan has never been united with AJK, despite attempts by people from AJK to have it incorporated into their entity. The people of Gilgit-Baltistan do not wish to be part of Jammu and Kashmir and have repeatedly urged Islamabad to grant them the status of a province. Steps have already been taken in that direction, with the establishment of a Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly in 2009. The majority of the people of AJK are happy to be part of Pakistan. There are some people from the Mirpur area who have advocated a united independent Jammu and Kashmir, especially those based in the United Kingdom. These demands have little substance to them and are usually used to mask complex internal conflicts about identity and struggles for preferential access to state benefits. The best course for Pakistan would be to grant provincial status to both AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan. AJK could be renamed as Jehlum Province to reflect the fact that it isnt really Kashmir, given that more than 98% of the people speak Punjabi. One should not forget the lessons of 1953 and the real reason for the termination of Kashmirs autonomy. Sheikh Abdullahs removal and the erosion of autonomy was brought about largely to placate the communal forces in Jammu that had been incited into action by Shyama Prasad Mukherjee. The rallying cry back then was Ek Vidhan, Ek Nishan, Ek Pradhan (one constitution, one flag and one prime minister). The Jammu agitators wanted an end to Kashmirs autonomy, with its own constitution, flag and prime minister. It has been difficult enough maintaining unity within J&K in the current set-up where J&K has no internal autonomy. An autonomous J&K would almost certainly trigger a flare-up in Jammu and Ladakh. A phased solution to the Kashmir problem should therefore begin with the resolution of the internal political dynamics in the erstwhile princely state. With internal political complications resolved, a final settlement between India and Pakistan will be much easier to achieve. As General Musharraf highlighted in his 2004 formula, the first step is to identify the region, by which he clearly meant the Kashmiri-speaking areas. India and Pakistan should start a dialogue to establish agreement on those areas in the princely state of J&K which each recognises as sovereign territory of the other and over which all claims are forsaken. Accordingly, India will renounce all claims to, and accept Pakistani sovereignty over, AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan. This will coincide with Pakistan amending its constitution so as to grant full provincial status to these entities and full representation in the Pakistani parliament. At the same time, Pakistan will renounce all claims to, and accept Indian sovereignty over, the whole of Ladakh province and the whole of Jammu province with the exception of districts Doda, Kishtwar and Ramban. This will coincide with the creation of a new union territory of Ladakh, as well as a new state or union territory of Jammu comprising the districts of Jammu, Udhampur, Poonch, Kathua, Samba, Rajouri, and Reasi. This mutual recognition of territories and the consequence reorganisation will require (i) a treaty between India and Pakistan; (ii) amendments to the Indian and Pakistani constitutions; and (iii) an amendment to the constitution of J&K state. Given that constitutional amendments will require 2/3rd majorities, this step will only work with the blessing of an overwhelming majority of the representatives of people in India, Pakistan and J&K. This internal reorganisation will go a long way towards bringing India and Pakistan closer to a final settlement. The final settlement need not by achieved immediately after the reorganisation. It can be subject to a process of dialogue over a long period of time. However, it will liberate the people of AJK, Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu and Ladakh from their forced association with a dispute that they can do nothing to solve. It will allow them to regularise their status as fully integrated parts of India and Pakistan, something they have ardently desired since 1947. If a solution to the Kashmir problem cannot begin with the full satisfaction of the wishes of the Kashmiri-speaking people, then why not begin with the full satisfaction of the other peoples who inhabit the princely state? Why hold them hostage to troubles concentrated in a small strip of land within the vast state? aatifahmad@hotmail Lastupdate on : Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:30:00 Makkah time Lastupdate on : Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:30:00 GMT Lastupdate on : Tue, 12 Nov 2013 00:00:00 IST
Posted on: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:03:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015