B.G. Verghese opines that some structural changes at the inter-regional level to accommodate the needs of Jammu and Ladakh, coupled with a heavy dose of political autonomy to the state as a whole, would help solve the Kashmir problem (`Clinton can't avoid Kashmir', March 15). It is obvious that he bases his formulation on the same controversial 53-year-old premise that the political aspirations of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh are almost identical and that the contradictions among them, if any, can easily be reconciled by offering some crumbs to the Jammuites and Ladakhis, as Dr Farooq Abdullah's report on regional autonomy does.If our opinion makers really wish to forge a lasting peace in this sensitive border state, they have no other option but to revise their formulations. They must take into consideration at least three prime factors which have been responsible for the Kashmir impasse and work for the state's ``political reorganisation.''One, the bitter opposition in Jammu and Ladakh to Article 370 and the July 1952 Nehru-Sheikh Abdullah Delhi agreement which limit the State's accession to the Indian Union only territorially. Two, the firm resolve of Jammu and Ladakh to ensure the collapse of the recently adopted State Autonomy Committee report, because it rejects the Indian Constitution in full, dilutes the country's sovereignty over J&K and contemplates a dispensation under which Jammu and Ladakh will have to adopt a policy of political mendicancy. Three, the state of J&K, which came into being in March 1846 by a quirk of history, has never been an organic political entity. A peep into the history of J&K clearly suggests that the Kashmiris' entire struggle between 1846 and 1947 and even later was shaped by the ``anti-Jammu stimulus''.It also demonstrates that Jammu, which ruled over the state for a full 101 years as a result of the March 1846 Amritsar Treaty between Gulab Singh and the British government, has never cherished the transfer of political power to the Valley and that it has never allowed, and will never allow, New Delhi to accept the Kashmiris' political demands. What then is the way out? Obviously it lies in the trifurcation of the state into Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh states. Even otherwise there is no justification in maintaining the state as it is. The people of Jammu and Ladakh are conspicuous by their absence in the Valley. Those who had immovable property in Kashmir have already sold it and settled down permanently in either Jammu or Ladakh. A few employees from Jammu and Ladakh, who used to hold certain positions in government and semi-government departments in Kashmir prior to the eruption of secessionist violence, have either retired or got themselves transferred elsewhere. If still there are some officials from Jammu and Ladkah in the Valley, they number not even 200 out of a total of about 2.25 lakh government employees.In any case, no one from Jammu and Ladakh could ever become chief minister of the state because the Valley leaders hold the view that since Kashmir has 46 seats in the 87-member assembly the office of the chief minister is their sole preserve.These and umpteen other factors have only created an extreme form of inter-regional animosity. While the people of Jammu and Ladakh complain that ``they are being treated as second class citizens by the Kashmiri leaders'', the Valley leaders accuse the legislators from Jammu and Ladakh of hobnobbing with the Centre to bring down what they call their ``legitimate governments'' and foist ``Delhi agents on the state''. The political reorganisation of the state along the lines suggested here, would remove all the negative trends and promote in each region sound politics based on democratic and economic principles. Besides, it will enable New Delhi to start negotiations with Kashmiri leaders of all shades of opinion and find a solution to their problems.The writer is the head of the History department of Jammu University and a member of ICHR
