Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Among the internal causes that contributed to or accentuated the problems the state of Jammu and Kashmir is faced with, most were inherent in its over centralised unitary form of Constitution which has in-built provisions for tensions between its regions and communities and under which good governance is hardly possible. As long as the personality of the state remains split and people are badly governed, there cannot be internal peace, nor can a consensus be evolved among its people on its external status. I have been pleading for systemic changes that promote understanding and harmony among all the diversities in which the state abounds.
I therefore welcome the reported move of the Centre to consider a system whereby the people of the state will have 8220;financial and administrative azadi8221; to manage their own affairs at the local level. As the head of the Regional Autonomy Committee, I had submitted a report to the government after studying various constitutional experiments of relevant countries, including the Swiss model. It envisaged a federal set-up for the state in which political, financial, administrative and cultural autonomy for the regions of the state were defined. Obviously financial autonomy implies political and administrative powers also. For financial autonomy I had recommended eight indicators to determine regional share. They included area, population, contribution to the state exchequer, road mileage in proportion to area, infant mortality, female education, share in state services, and admissions to technical institutions. The regional share would be in direct proportion to the ranking of the first three indicators and inversely proportional to the last five indicators which are measures of backwardness.
When the Hurriyat Conference was formed in 1994, I had invited its leaders to follow the example of the People8217;s Convention and initiate dialogue with the leaders of Jammu and Ladakh on inter-regional relations, irrespective of one8217;s views on the external status of the state. For whatever be the eventual status, the problem of inter-regional relations would have to be faced. In any case, why should internal tensions continue till the final status of the state was settled?
Somehow the Hurriyat evaded the issue. But significantly Mirwarz Maulvi Umar Farooq has, in a recent statement, supported a federal system for the state. Whatever differences leaders in the separatist and the mainstream parties might have with him on other issues, his views on federalism appear to represent a wider emerging opinion in Kashmir 8212; that without it unity of the state and good governance cannot be ensured, as has been demonstrated elsewhere in the world.
Apart from the merits of a federal and decentralised system, the Congress, which is a major coalition partner in the state government and is leading the coalition at the Centre, has a special responsibility to implement it. For it was a commitment Jawaharlal Nehru made at a press conference in July 1952. Before handing over power to Sheikh Abdullah in 1975, Indira Gandhi ensured that he reiterated his commitment to regional autonomy at a convention of representatives of Jammu and Ladakh. Lastly Rajiv Gandhi introduced the constitutional amendment which provided for decentralisation of power at the district, block and panchayat levels. As under Article 370 it was not applicable to the state, it enacted its own law which provided for state control over panchayati raj institutions at all levels. Though some improvements have now been conceded after prolonged protests, still there is no provision for the gram sabha and the provision for nominations makes it far less democratic than elsewhere in the country. Genuinely democratic panchayati raj and regional autonomy are commitments made by Nehru, Indira and Rajiv, and their present successors owe it to them to deliver on these promises.
