Understanding Jammu & Kashmir
by Hari Om on 11 May 2013 13 Comments

Thousands of essays on the genesis of and solution to the so-called Kashmir issue have appeared in national dailies and journals of repute during the last quarter century. More than 700 books on the same theme and during the same period have also come out. Most of these works – barring works on the forced exodus of over three lakh Kashmiri Hindus from the land of the Vitasta (Jhelum) – were an attempt to express deep anguish over the orgy of death and destruction in the Kashmir Valley, a paltry five per cent of the State’s land area, has been witnessing since 1989; they try to suggest measures to help restore peace and normality there. Nothing wrong with that; it’s only natural.

 

A close scrutiny of whatever appeared during all these years of communal violence and turmoil in Jammu & Kashmir, however, reveals that all or nearly all those who penned down their views, for most part refused to look beyond the highly prosperous and over-developed Kashmir Valley on the misguided notion that the Valley constitutes the entire State of Jammu & Kashmir, and that winning over the hearts of the “alienated” Kashmiri Muslims would be the same as meeting the needs and aspirations of the people of Jammu province and Ladakh region and all those who have never been considered part and parcel of “Kashmiriyat”.

 

The term “Kashmiriyat” was coined only in 1976 by a Jammu-based commentator and supporter of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, a votary of plebiscite/autonomy. A study of these writings also tells us that almost all the authors of these writings believe that the Valley’s gross political neglect, its under-development, the Centre’s indifferent attitude to the Valley’s economic needs and inadequate employment opportunities for educated Muslim youth of the Valley are the four major breeders of terrorism in what was not so long ago “a paradise on earth”.

 

The assumption that the politico-economic neglect of the Valley has been responsible for the “alienation” of Kashmiri Muslims from the national mainstream, suffers from grave errors of analysis and judgment. The facts about the post-1947 Valley clear all cobwebs of confusion and establish that right from the day of the State’s accession to the Indian Dominion on October 26, 1947, political power, funds for developmental schemes and a better deal in matters relating to employment and location of prestigious institutions and industrial units have been the sole privileges of the Valley. Jammu and Ladakh provinces received only crumbs. The rate of unemployment in the Valley is less than 30 per cent compared to over 69 per cent in Jammu province and all Chief Ministers of the State till date have been from Kashmir belonging to the Sunni sect (only Congress’ Ghulam Nabi Azad was from Jammu).

 

It is a different matter that these analysts, like all Valley leaders, describe the existing politico-constitutional set-up as “anti-Kashmiriyat” and put forth a formula that not only seeks to drive Jammu & Kashmir away from New Delhi, but also rejects outright the loud clamour of the people beyond the Valley for empowerment on the ground that the Valley makes no distinction between Kashmiris and non-Kashmiris. They argue that the demand of non-Kashmiris, if accepted, would “hurt the Kashmiri psyche”. They, in addition, interpret the demand of the people of Jammu and Ladakh and others, who do not subscribe to the Valley’s communal and separatist ideology, for a meaningful decentralisation of State powers as the demand of the “rightists calculated to disintegrate the State”.

 

The arguments which these ‘trouble-shooters’ and protagonists of loose relations between Jammu & Kashmir and the Centre advance against the loud cry in different parts of the State, particularly Jammu and Ladakh regions, for reorganisation of the existing politico-constitutional, administrative and economic structure on regional basis are as abstract as they are politically and communally-motivated.

 

Any impartial observer and investigator with a secular and democratic outlook would at once vouch for the fact that there are cogent reasons for people beyond the Valley to demand an instrument which caters to their basic needs. The severe inter-regional animosity and bitterness prevailing in Jammu & Kashmir demonstrates that the essentially unitary constitutional structure under which the State has been governing, particularly after January 26, 1957 has not produced the desired results. The prime reason is that the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution of 1957 takes no cognisance of the inherent contradictions between the Valley and Jammu and between the former and Ladakh in respect of language, culture, ethnicity, economy and geography, as also of the urges of the religious and ethnic minorities in the State.

 

Two other very crucial factors were also overlooked by the framers of the State Constitution. One was the historical antagonism between the Valley and Jammu in the sense that the former viewed the latter between March 1846 and October 1947 as an “alien and oppressor”. Its entire struggle, particularly under the banner of Anjuman-e-Islamia/ Muslim Conference/ National Conference was shaped by anti-Jammu stimulus. This is what a peep into the history of Jammu and Kashmir reveals.

 

The other was the sharp contradiction in the political perceptions and attitudes between the leaders of the Valley and people of Jammu and Ladakh. The State’s complete integration with India and application of the Indian Constitution to the State in its entirety, barring Article 370, were, and continue to be, the two fundamental watchwords of the people of Jammu and Ladakh. The Valley leadership has, on the other hand, all thorough been an ardent champion of limited accession with greater autonomy, and even complete separation from India.

 

It needs to be underlined that the State of Jammu & Kashmir has never been an organic political entity since its inception in March 1846 under the Treaty of Amritsar between the Raja of Jammu, Gulab Singh, and the British Government. Till the accession of the State to the Indian Dominion, the Maharaja was the sole link among the heterogeneous regions of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. In fitness of things, the best way after the State’s accession to India was to bring Jammu & Kashmir under the purview of the States’ Reorganisation Commission and create three separate States of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh on a linguistic basis. This was not done. Instead, the State was maintained as one political entity.

 

Once the framers of the Indian Constitution took the decision not to reorganise the State on a linguistic basis, it was imperative on their part to take into consideration multi-dimensional dissimilarities in culture, language, ethnicity, geography, history and political perceptions of Jammu, the Valley and Ladakh, as well as the general political and economic rights and interests of the religious and ethnic minorities, and work out a political mechanism which could make the people of each region master of their own destiny so that they could grow freely under the Indian Constitution and protect the minorities from exclusion by the Valley.

 

This was a matter of central importance in view of the well-known anti-Jammu mindset of the Valley leadership as clearly exhibited in the course of the Anjuman-e-Islamia/ Muslim Conference/ National Conference struggles like the October 1924 Scrap Amritsar Treaty Crusade and the 1946 “Quit Kashmir Movement”, as also the known apathy of the Valley leadership for the minorities. Sadly, what was done was to the contrary. The State at the behest of the Valley-based National Conference, a votary of limited accession, was given a special status under Article 370 to the chagrin of the people of Jammu and Ladakh (and other pro-integrationists). This added more fuel to the fire, aggravated the dark scenario of regional mistrust and bitterness and rendered the minorities helpless.

 

Armed with absolute political powers under Article 370, the Valley leadership ruled the State roughshod, completely ignoring the general political and economic rights and interests of the people of Jammu and Ladakh and the religious and ethnic minorities in the Valley and created an environment in which no person from Jammu and Ladakh could reside and serve in Kashmir and become Chief Minister of the State. It was not merely a lapse on their part. All was deliberate – part of design in which fitted their elemental urge for revenge against Jammu, which paid a sum of rupees 75 lakh to the British Government in 1846 and ruled over the Valley for 101 years and establish the Valley’s hegemony and domination over the State’s politics and economy. 

 

Some of the consequences of the policies which the Valley leadership evolved and pursued ruthlessly were: Wholesale transfer of people of Jammu and Ladakh and Kashmiri Hindus from the Valley to Jammu and Ladakh; appointment of thousands of Kashmir Muslims in Jammu and Ladakh against vacancies caused by death, retirement and  dismissal of the incumbents and additional requirements; diversion of funds allotted for Jammu and Ladakh to the Valley; creation of a Muslim-majority Doda district out of the Hindu-majority Udhampur district of Jammu province in 1948 and division of the Buddhist-majority Ladakh district in 1978 in order to set up a Muslim-majority Kargil district.

 

Had our decision-makers federalised the State’s polity immediately after the transfer of political power from Jammu to the Valley in October 1947 and provided adequate constitutional safeguards for the protections and promotion of general socio-economic and political rights of those beyond the pampered and appeased Valley, or those who favoured, and continue to favour a line different from that of the Valley leaders, there would have been no unrest in Jammu and Ladakh and among the religious and ethnic minorities in the Valley.

 

But the question is: Will New Delhi ever recognise the ground realities in the State, including the reality that the problem in Kashmir is patently communal and not political or economic, and act accordingly taking into consideration the paramount national interests in Jammu & Kashmir? The answer is no. The Congress-led UPA Government will not do this. There is no need to elucidate this, as everyone knows that the Congress is the mother of all evils facing India.

User Comments Post a Comment
Sir, "Media-hyped unrest over one-rank-one-pay for the Armed Forces", Really ? Please consider the following.

The address of the then BJP (PM Designate) Modi to the Ex-Servicement at a rally in Rewari, Haryana on 15 Sep 2013 :

" Who stops our former soldiers to live with honour and self respect, and their genuine demands getting fulfilled? We have been hearing about one rank, one pension since many years, what is the problem..? Today I publically demand from the Government of India on behalf of the army men and ex-service men of this country, to publish a white paper on the status of 'one rank, one pension' scheme. And Friends, I am sure that if in 2004, Vajpayee Ji would have formed government, then today this problem of one rank one pension would not have been complicated..! Friends, people would have sat together and Atal Ji would have found a solution to this problem, and would have given our former servicemen live with pride and honour".

And then as the Prime Minister, at Siachen on 24 Oct 2014 :

" How many decades have passed without One Rank One Pension. It was in my destiny that One rank One pension has been fulfilled, and preparations were being made for a National War Memorial, that we could all be proud of. The government is committed to the cause.”

So, from 'my destiny that OROP has been fulfilled' to the present '“You have been patient for 40 years, wait for some more time. This is a complex issue... I promise we will hold discussions and resolve it”.

If that was not enough, the Defence Minister at the India Today Conclave had stated that OROP will be implemnted by end Mar 2015. This was later shifted to Apr 2015, and then to 13 May 2015 and then to 25 May 2015 and to the present of 'GOD ONLY KNOWS WHEN'.

And the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister want us 'JOE SUCKERS' Veterans to believe in their word, when their very credibility lies in TATTERS.

It is learnt that the case for OROP has left the Minister of Defence on 12 Mar 2015. Thereafter the volleyball game of the Babus has started !! It is reliably learnt that thefile has been tossed between the two Ministries five times !! It is also reliably learntthat the Defence Minister had shown a chart of the calculations for OROP amounting to Rs. 8297 crores,to a delegation of Ex Servicemen that had called on him in early Mar 2015.

An action oriented Govt with TRANSPARENCY !! INDEED, SIR !!

If all the preceding was not enough of Govt. 'dilly-dallying', The Committee on Petitions of Rajya Sabha under the Chairmanship of Shri Bhagat Singh Koshyari, MP,[BJP], presented its Hundred and Forty-second Report to the Rajya Sabha on 19th December, 2011 on the petition praying for grant of one rank one pension to the armed forces personnel.

Following are the some important recommendations of the Committee:-

- "The Committee has taken note of the fact that a sum of Rs.1300 crores is the total financial liability for the year 2011-12 in case OROP is implemented fully for all the defence personnel in the country across the board. The Committee was informed that out of this, 1065 crores would go to retirees belonging to Post Below Officer Ranks (PBOR) while the Commissioned Officers would be getting the remaining i.e. 235 crores. The Committee felt that 1300 crores is not a very big amount for a country of our size and economy for meeting the long pending demand of the armed forces of the country. The Committee understand that this 1300 crores is the expenditure for one year which might increase at the rate of 10 percent annually.Even if it is so, the Committee does not consider this amount to be high, keeping in view the objective for which it would be spent". (Para 11 of the Report)

- "The Committee was not convinced with the version of the Ministry of Finance that the grant of OROP to the defence personnel would eventually generate similar requests from the civilian work force of the country under the Central Government and the State Governments. The Committee feels so because of the quite different terms and conditions of service of the two different categories of employments. The terms and conditions of armed forces are tougher and harsher than the civilian Government employee. On the issue of returning of service medals by the defence personnel of our country to the President of India in view of the Governments' apathetic attitude towards their demand of grant of OROP, the Committee was of the view that our defence personnel should not feel alienated to this extent again and they are not forced to surrender their hard earned service medals in this manner to exhibit their discontent with the government policies". (Para 11.2 of the Report)

- The Committee also felt that the decision of the Government to bring our defence personnel on the pattern of the civilians with regard to their pay, pension, etc. (from Third Central Pay Commission onwards) is not a considered decision which has caused hardship to the defence personnel and has given birth to their demand for OROP. The Committee understand that before the Third Central Pay Commission, the defence personnel were getting their pay / pension on the basis of separate criteria unconnected with the criteria devised for the civilian work force. That criteria acknowledged and covered the concept of OROP which has been given up after the Third Central Pay Commission".(Para 11.4 of the Report)

And the Prime Minister wants us - veterans to be 'patient'. Brutus was also an Honourable man, Sir !!

Pertinent to mention here that OROP has been well defined by the Petitions Committee of the Rajya Sabha in its report. This has been accepted by Parliament. Not just that. The Interim Budget of UPA-2 and the First Budget of the current NDA Govts. had catered for OROP AND WAS PASSED BY THE RESPECTIVE LOK SABHA. It was also included in the President's address toboth houses of Parliament !!

After all this 'OROP IS A COMPLEX ISSUE' !! And, we are supposed to believe this hogwash !!

As I see it, this OROP imbroglio is a massive 'con game' played by the combine of Modi +Arun Jaitely + Manohar Parrikar. They got the veterans' votes in 2014, and it was 'Game - Set - and- Match' thereafter

Regret Dear Prime Minister - can't believe your words any longer.

And, for the record: I have returned my medals to the Supreme Commander in sheer disgust at the apathy of the Politico - Babudom for the Armed Forces.

R.I.P - OROP.

Regards
Capt. (retd) H.Balakrishnan, I.N.
June 02, 2015
Report Abuse
Good analysis,an informative article for the reader. I wish the author had dealt some aspects, like agriculture, in greater detail, where the Modi government needs to be extremely vigilant, lest the opposition take advantage to flog it and portray a negative image of the government, as is currently happening. With a merciless summer, and, an El Nino waiting in the wings to happen, the huge farmer community will look up to Modi for succour. Manipulating just the minimum support price (MSP) for food grains, and now, for pulses and oilseeds, as proposed by the Food and Consumers Affairs Minister Ram Vilas Paswan, is no true remedy for the maladies confronted by Indian agriculture. They are deep rooted and there is an urgent need, not just for arm chair economists not having a true understanding of the ground reality of Indian agriculture, for persons with a clear vision on Indian agriculture to participate in the deliberations of official bodies like NITI Ayog, which, most unfortunately, is not the case, as of now.
Professor K.P.Prabhakaran Nair
June 02, 2015
Report Abuse
I feel deeply for PM Modi and his Sarkar. What great expectations! Look at the line-up of folks who are watching how Modi Sarkar performs. Leaving aside the asinine opposition and their supporters, we have impatient, fiery ex-army men baying for OROP, we have agri-watchers waiting to pounce about GM and food price policy, and we have other sundry reluctant Modi admirers who are sure that they would do a great job of putting this country on track if only they were given the chance!

I likened Sushma Swaraj's press meet to a verbal annual performance review, to a couple of my colleagues. The response from one was: what did MOEA have to do? Modi went everywhere, no? SIGH. When I mentioned the Yemen rescue's details and the importance of being Indian on that foreign land, there was surprise...they did not know. We are all educated. We all have freedom to read at watch on TV what we want and form our opinions. Can we not exercise the freedom to cut some slack for a man with obvious good intentions for this country to do what he has promised to do? OROP will happen, Captain Sir. So will the agri policy get better. Just keep giving inputs to Modi Sarkar...they will do what it takes. Have faith. See, the glass as half full already. We are Indians, we have hope. We have chosen a man to set our country on the right path so that all our efforts are not filtered away to benefit some crooks. See the value in Sandhya Jain's analysis...it can only get better.
Sujata Srinath
June 02, 2015
Report Abuse
@Sujata, thanks. I wish I could have done more on foreign policy but 1050 words for one year was a tall order and I have written much on foreign policy elsewhere also.
I agree that Sushma Swaraj is one of the great successes of the Modi Sarkar
Sandhya Jain
June 02, 2015
Report Abuse
it is always a great pleasure to read Ms Sandhya ji Jain's articles. Crisply written and rich in informative contents. thanks, again.
Shilpy
June 02, 2015
Report Abuse
Excellent Sandhya
Uttam
June 02, 2015
Report Abuse
Love the 'rebooted' robotic! For this alone the article is a distinction.
Saraswati
June 02, 2015
Report Abuse
Dear Madam Sujatha Srinath,

I read your comments, and may I please assure you, in all humility, I am not one of those "sundry reluctant Modi admirers, who are sure that they would do a great job of putting this country on track if only they were given a chance" , nor one of the "agri-watchers to pounce about GM and food price policy". I truly admire the man, and, may I please assure you, again in all humility, my record in my specialisation , which is agriculture, is of the highest and impeccable global standards and, I am very well recognised all over the world for my contributions, unlike some who trot around as "scientists", but are, at best "manipulators". As for my stand on GM crops it is very clear (no hidden agenda unlike those who peddle them) and Sandhyaji knows it well. If I am not recognised, here in India, it is simply because, I refuse to be a sycophant, and a manipulator, if you understand what I mean. Thank you for reading these comments, I thought I should clear your ill placed doubts, in case you have any and are wary of expressing them openly, concerning my credentials
Professor K.P.Prabhakaran Nair
June 02, 2015
Report Abuse

Good summary on NaMo govt, long path ahead, beginning good in the given circumstances, working with a clear vision
krishnarjun
June 02, 2015
Report Abuse
Agree with the writer; nice round up
AK
June 02, 2015
Report Abuse
Thank you Sandhya for a beautiful article on the Vat Purnima full moon. Colossus is the right word. Modi is India’s man of destiny, after a 67-year drought. We needed this man of great dignity, also full of contradictions, just like our beloved nation and its people. He has given himself away, with a rare degree of selfless commitment, dedication and seriousness of purpose, while at the same time, light-heartedly flaunting his foibles literally on his sleeve with childlike enthusiasm and infectious joy. We love him like pater familias and are willing to be patient and forgiving for small mistakes here and there, just like we do within our families in India. No amount of media or opposition malevolence can dent his growing popularity around the world, as a long-awaited statesman who inspires and ignites our dreams once again. The brazenness of bungling scamsters – to whom we had gifted a long rope – broke our hearts and brought us shame on the world stage, and so Modi represents a refreshing change at this point in time. Today the nation is more alert and aware than the media imagines, and the miasma of disinformation and shrill invective doesn’t affect his growing hold over the imagination of the vast Indian populace across all divides. Also, the unity and singularity of purpose that he has woven into his hand-picked team is nothing short of a miracle.
Modi and Rahul Gandhi represent the Karan - Arjun divide as the ‘OBC chaiwala pretender’ and the milk-white shahzada with a massive ‘bearded jholawala-of-the-seventies’ complex. Unfortunately for him, the passionate diatribes against his nemesis who dared to snatch away his throne don’t somehow gel with the distinct zombie look he continues to project. Perhaps his image builders can microwave this wrinkle out of his persona soon enough. But one can’t help wonder what he makes of the suited-and-booted flair of the greatest dalit icon of all times—Ambedkar himself! Goes to show that Indians care more about substance and integrity than petty bourgeoisie narrow-mindedness in those whom they idolise!
A final word of cautious wisdom to the youthful RaGa, would be to tone down his vituperative attacks on Modi, which go against the quintessential Indian tradition of tehzeeb, or courtesy shown to elders, if he wishes to earn respect of the masses. It would be a good beginning. There are invisible lines that must not be crossed in parliamentary, political, or public discourse, which none of his anglophile or Italian advisers, media image-makers, family and friends seem to be aware of. He still has time to correct himself, should he wish for himself any long-term influence on the Indian national scene. Indians tend to be a forgiving lot, provided he is open to new learning about cultural sensitivities that are beyond the ken of tired old leftist or allegedly ‘liberal’ advisers .
Rudrapratap
June 02, 2015
Report Abuse
OROP is a very simplified way of defining the terms of pension fixation. For Family pensioners it was there already. There are genuine issues , the politicians are perhaps never briefed on that before they promise in good faith. The issues settled by the Armed forces tribunal and High courts and supreme courts which were never implemented by the Min of Defense in relation to pay and pensions are all to be accepted by the same bureaucracy which denied the benefits to the forces for the final OROP to be laid out as an algorithm to work out the entitled pension amount.The 33 years service for full pension is a case in point. Add to this the envy and jealousy reactions from the paramilitary forces side who though got benefits which are denied to the defence forces like NFFU (non functional financial upgradation )and assured carrier progression . All this to be agreed upon with the stake holders and realizing that there is no staff side in matters of anomaly resolution processes in the case of uniformed people in the defence ministry, it is a good progress that has been made on OROP front. Whatever decided on OROP again should not be altered by the 7th Pay commission hence more time to decide on OROP.
Ravi
June 02, 2015
Report Abuse
Dear Prof. K P P Nair,

I am sorry if you felt that my comment was directed towards you in particular. Let me assure you that I admire your stand on GM crops and truly find your advice to the agriculture ministry very well reasoned, although I don't profess to know much about agriculture. I am happy that you find PM Modi a sincere man. But that is not the case with many others. They are not ready to shift focus from what is yet to be done/achieved nor are they willing to acknowledge that there is a limit to what can be achieved in a year.

My comments were more of an observation of how even a good year by a new government can invite more brickbats than kudos from those who voted with very, very high expectations of the ground realities changing dramatically. Maybe PM Modi could have done some such cosmetic changes but perhaps his focus is more on putting systemic changes in place.

Regards,
Sujata Srinath
Sujata Srinath
June 02, 2015
Report Abuse
Excellent piece; the continued anti-Modi stand of main stream media (MSM) is unfortunate and has deprived millions of Indians info on the achievements to date; as the author has correctly pointed out, many uncertainties -e.g deficit monsoon - etc loom large and may delay employment generation - especially in rural India;
Naagesh
June 03, 2015
Report Abuse
The damage done by the previous Government cannot be undone fast. The incumbent Government has laid down clearly defined paths for economic revival, tackling corruption and having a faster decision-making mechanism. Social welfare schemes with a wide reach to the underprivileged and the middle-class go to prove that Prime Minister Narendra Modi wants to keep the interest of this segment on a priority.

As far as the corporate sector is concerned, it is not the responsibility of the Government to help businesses raise capital and draw out sustainable plans. It boils down to the Government deciding on a roadmap and being judicious in debt-raising exercises. The Government can help in clearing hurdles and streamlining policy framework and decision-making, which it is doing perfectly. We just need to be patient.
Balgovind
June 03, 2015
Report Abuse
Great article
Nihar
June 03, 2015
Report Abuse
Brilliant
Sanjeev
June 03, 2015
Report Abuse
Dear Shrimathi Sujatha Srinath,

I thank you for your kind words clarifying things. This is a belated response, I have been far too busy the last couple of days with many things academic

Warm regards,


Prabhakaran Nair
Professor K.P.Prabhakaran Nair
June 04, 2015
Report Abuse
Sandhyaji,
Hope you get Rajya Sabha Seat sooner from this Govt...

Present GOVT doesn't even deserved to be in power for even 1 Day.

Price of Tomato is 45 Rs/Kg in Hyderabad.....While during monsoon it used to be 10/Kg....Is that sellers are making GOOD Money?

Modiji's GM corps only will help reducing price of vegetables...
Jaykumar
June 13, 2015
Report Abuse