Farooq8217;s theatrics

Is the Samajwadi Party boss really accusing the quot;Hindu fundamentalistquot; Bharatiya Janata Party of pampering Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir?If you ask me, this flood of emotion smacks of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The first is autonomy, which might more properly be titled decentralisation8217; or federalism8217;. The second is Farooq Abdullah8217;s theatrics. Let us not confuse the two.

I am as sceptical as the next person about the National Conference leader8217;s motives. Why has he chosen this particular moment in time to demand a return to the pre-1953 situation? Is it because of the rumours that the Government of India was prepared to talk to the Hurriyat Conference? But whatever the motives of the whimsical Chief Minister, some of the issues he has raised continue to resonate. S.C. Jamir, Chief Minister of Nagaland, has already come out in support of autonomy8217;. And Punjab8217;s Prakash Singh Badal seemed to suggest that Farooq Abdullah sinned only in going too far. This is a fair assessment; had the National Conference been more moderate in its demands, other regional parties in the National Democratic Alliance would have played along.

So, can we move the debate away from Jammu and Kashmir and look at Centre-State relations as a whole? The basic problem is that most politicians have got so used to the over-centralisation of the past 50 years that anything else seems unnatural. By force of reaction, Delhi-bashing has become a vote-catcher for some regional forces. Ideally, the two truly pan-Indian parties, the BJP and the Congress, would create a middle ground of sorts. But I am not sure if the internal dynamics of either party admits such a possibility. Think about it for a moment: is either the BJP or the Congress truly balanced internally? Whatever anyone says, the Congress still boasts some really good leaders at the regional level a Digvijay Singh or an S. M. Krishna come to mind; it is the High Command in Delhi that is insipid and stuck in a groove. The success of the party in the Assembly elections bears this out. Digvijay Singh8217;s victory had little or nothing to do with Sonia Gandhi. If anything, I sincerely believe he would havedone better without her! Take a look now at the BJP. Here, the central leadership is excellent, but the second rung of leaders in the states isn8217;t quite up to the mark.

Atal Behari Vajpayee carries his party in his wake in general elections, but, say, the Uttar Pradesh unit appears to be stranded without any leader.How does this link up with the brouhaha over Kashmir? Shouldn8217;t issues such as autonomy be discussed without reference to politics as usual? Unfortunately, that dispassionate attitude doesn8217;t work.

Political parties and governments are both composed of fallible human beings. If those same people fail to create a balance between the party headquarters in Delhi and the various provincial chieftains, how do you expect them to do so between the Union and the state governments?Moving away from the Congress and the BJP, the same problem is apparent in almost every party. Mulayam Singh Yadav is as reluctant to let a colleague shine as Sonia Gandhi. The CPM Politburo can be just as domineering to its cadre as Farooq Abdullah complains that Delhi is to Srinagar. Whatever the lip-service paid to the virtues of federalism, the leadership of every party is reluctant to establish a more collegial approach to making decisions.

This is the nub of the problem the enormous reluctance of our politicians to let go of power. They do not do it in their own parties; how can we expect them to change simply because they happen to become ministers?The BJP has evolved a little under sheer force of circumstances; the only way to run the government in Delhi is to cooperate with regional organisations. But has it done enough to search for, and then nurture, talent within its own ranks at the state level? The unhappy examples of Shankarsinh Vaghela and Kalyan Singh suggest otherwise.

As for the Congress, well, its public declaration about not sharing power with any allies tells the whole story. It is asking for too much from Sonia Gandhi to expect her to appreciate federalism. The solution is that we should trust institutions rather than individuals or political organisations. Here, the poser is that the Constitution itself is tilted. The men who wrote it gave far too much power to the Centre, not realising the level of irresponsibility this would encourage in the states.

Coming back to the immediate problem of Jammu and Kashmir, it is impossible for any ministry in Delhi to grant everything that the National Conference asked for. Some say the extravagance of the requests was a bargaining tactic; I am not sure why we should respect politicians who treat matters of state as nothing more important than haggling over the price of fish. But Farooq Abdullah did, unwittingly, bring Centre-State relations back to everyone8217;s attention.

What can be used as a basis for discussion? Definitely not the resolution passed by the National Conference! But is there any reason why the long-ignored Sarkaria Commission Report should not be dusted?Most parties say India should do everything it can to help Tamils in Sri Lanka except support secession. Is there any reason why we can8217;t swallow our own medicine give as much power as possible to the states? Or, as a Congress Prime Minister once said of Kashmir, quot;everything but independencequot;.