PUNCHLINE

Chidambaram Has A Point

Have Governors A Role In Kashmir Dispute

By

Z.G. Muhammad

On Saturday, Oct 27, 2018, there was a graveyard silence outside, with people remaining indoors in protest against  landing of troops from New Delhi at Srinagar airport in 1947.  Everything was in mourning, mesmerizing autumn with its variegated colors  had been converted into a season of killings – fifty youth   killed in a month.  In this somber scenario the moment I sat on my desk to write a weekly column I spotted an old book titled ‘The Governor Sage or Saboteur’ on a shelf in my small study. The book was published in 1985, by the Roli Books International. Despite, its glossy white dustcover with age having turned brownish yellow, the compilation of eight papers by eminent Indian scholar is still relevant to Indian politics, where governors are still used to topple elected governments. Those, whose articles in the book include,   Soli J Sorabjee, Govind Narian, and Namboodripad.

It is not my cup of tea, to discuss and debate the points raised in the book about the ‘ambiguity in gubernatorial powers and functions of the governors in various Indian states that have raised disputes in the past.  The book carries some case-studies about how governor’s office has become a device to curb the constitutionally prescribed autonomy of the states in Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim, and Jammu, and Kashmir. Despite, these studies the debate about abolishing and not abolishing of the institution of the governor or restricting it to ceremonial functions as argued in the book is not a concern of this column. In the context of the statements made by newly appointed governor Satya Pal Malik and tweets by former home minister P. Chidambaram,   the title of the book that inspired this column.

For past fifty-two years, since New Delhi started appointing its governors in Jammu and Kashmir, at no point of time has a governor, or the institution of the governor found a mention in the popular Kashmir discourse. He has not been part of the broader Kashmir narrative that for past seventy years has bedeviled India and Pakistan relations. Moreover, made the state a nuclear flashpoint in South Asia.  The governors other than being the watchdog of New Delhi in the state have no role in the political affairs of the state – not at least in the resolution of Kashmir problem that is a harsher reality.  He is not consulted, when there are bilateral talks between Islamabad and New Delhi on Kashmir. The consent of governor is not taken for starting track two dialogue on Kashmir, at least there is no evidence to that effect. They are rarely kept in the loop when non-papers are exchanged for giving a final shape to the solutions like four-point formula. But as against this, there is a history on occasion some “leaders” across the divide have been taken on board. The institution of the governor is not seen as a separate entity with an independent political mandate but an extension of New Delhi in the state. Even, for that matter, the Sadre-e-Riyast, (1952- 1964) who was not nominated by President of India but “elected representative of the people” in the international or popular discourse about the future of Kashmir was not reckoned of any significance.  The first and last Sadre-e-Riyast of the state Dr. Karan Singh found a mention in international media only when at the behest of Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru he s deposed and caged Prime Minister, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and appointed his lieutenant Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad in his place. Most of the governors appointed by New Delhi in the state recognizing these facts have chosen not to make any significant statements about the political status of the state that could whip up controversies with the potential of complicating the situation further. Many governors have once they were tasked to do so, worked as facilitators for New Delhi to open a dialogue with the leaders of the state. Nonetheless, some of the governors during the New Delhi’s direct rule are remembered for grave human rights violations.

The present governor who has been in office for past two months during past couple of days made a couple of political statements that he is not mandated to do.  These statements caused a reaction across the political divide in the state:

  On Wednesday, Mr. Malik, referring to the NC and the PDP, said, “These [political parties] have no right to talk about India-Pakistan peace talks. It is between governments of the two nations, as being neighbors makes it obvious that talks will happen for sure. But political parties bringing up the issue of Pakistan into dialogue process was neither acceptable to us then, nor will it be now.”

On Thursday he said: I’ve been meeting people from all shades of opinion.   I meet everyone. As far as Hurriyat (conference) is concerned they without asking Pakistan don’t go even to the toilet.  There will be no talks with them till they keep Pakistan out of it,”

The statements raised eyebrows in Indian leadership also. Former Home Minister, P. Chidambaram reacting to Governor’s statement in his tweets said:

“J&K Governor says political parties have no right to talk about India-Pakistan talks. He is probably a votary of ‘partyless democracy’ or ‘no democracy’ at all.”

In a sarcastic comment, Chidambaram said, “We were told that the last governor was Lord Mountbatten. Wrong. Appointed Governors and Lieutenant Governors are the new Viceroys”.

Chidambaram has a point, but there seems some logic in the statement of the governor also about the National Conference and the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) – the parties that believe in the finality of accession with India. India added weight to its complaint dated 1 January 1948 against Pakistan in the UNSC quoting an appeal it had received from the National Conference for sending troops to the state and it supporting the accession of the State with India. Thus, vesting its authority with GOI, and forfeiting the right to be a stakeholder in the resolution of the dispute. So far it has not changed its stand on the finality of accession, same holds about the PDP. Furthermore, a statement about pro-India parties by the governor is in synchronization with the popular discourse that has been questioning these parties’ claim to be stakeholders in Kashmir problem for endorsing “finality of accession.”  Nevertheless, that does not mean these parties have these parties have no right to demand to work for peace in the region. With India and Pakistan, in perpetual conflict, peace in South Asia will be a mirage.

His take on the resistance leadership is bizarre. The case of the resistance organizations including the JRL   demanding the resolution of the Kashmir problem according to the UNSC resolution and pledges made out by the Indian leadership is different in as much since 1993; New Delhi has been directly and indirectly engaging with them at various levels. Moreover, in the nineties,  the Hurriyat leaders were meeting Pakistan leaders in New Delhi, apparently within the knowledge of the GOI. There were no red lines drawn for stopping Hurriyat leaders from meeting the Pakistan leaders including President Musharraf, prime ministers, foreign ministers, and other officials. The red lines were drawn only after the year 2015. It had long efforts for New Delhi, engaging peace nicks and senior official to bring the APHC on the table. It had resulted in meeting between a section of a faction of the Hurriyat at the Prime Minister level during both the NDA and UPA government. The meeting was not reducing prices of carrots and cabbages and constructing culverts. Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani had found Hurriyat leaders “genuine,” and he admits that GOI had dropped them hints that talks with them would be outside the Constitution. Advani also tells us had not NDA lost elections there would have been talks on “substantive issues”- what could be the substantive issue other the final settlement. So holds about the UPA government, when talks on the four-point formula were at a high pitch the Hurriyat was not only kept in the loop, but travels of the whole contingent of resistance leaders and opinion writers to Pakistan was facilitated. They were not sent on an excursion; the mission was entirely transparent to apprise them about progress made on the four-point formula- an interim solution for the resolution of Kashmir.

 The way forward lies in recognizing the harsh realities about Kashmir.