Opinion Separate and unequal

Predictably,Narendra Modi has brought up the issue of Article 370. The BJP wants to abolish it,but did not dare to do so during the NDA days. The Congress would not only leave it as it is,but also refuse to even discuss it. It is a taboo subject because Kashmir means secularism and secularism means Congress,at least for the Congress people.

Memories are short but the origins of Article 370 are in the ambivalence about the accession of J&K to India. The Pakistan army,disguised as tribal freebooters,attacked the Valley and nearly took it over much like India took Hyderabad. But luckily,Hari Singh signed up in time and the Indian Army saved his bacon. At that stage,a muddle followed with an appeal to the United Nations. The Congress had committed to popular consultation for any native state where the king was likely to be difficult. Shaikh Abdullah passionately wanted a referendum and was promised one.

Article 370 is the result of that promise to the Lion of Kashmir. But soon Jawaharlal Nehru changed his mind and never wanted to deliver on the plebiscite which was part of the UN settlement. When the Shaikh realised this,he tried to negotiate with Pakistan. In 1953,he was put in jail without trial. At that point,Article 370 became a dead letter,a totem of past promises and a fig leaf of India’s faith in the UN. Kashmir has been treated like a colony,a separate and unequal part of the Union ever since. Chief ministers have been hired and fired from Delhi,the Shaikh was released as arbitrarily as he was arrested. He was tamed and the state was awarded as a hereditary jagir to him. But this was done only after several elections had been rigged. Only the 1989 riots made the government of India reform its behaviour.

Any debate on Article 370 will raise questions about its formal text and its real implementation. Kashmir also raises issues about the idea of India. The controversy raised about the rights of Kashmiri women as against the men has revealed murky details. If it is true that the rights of Kashmiri and Jammu women to buy property are conditional upon not marrying an out-of-state person,it means that out-of-state men are treated as foreigners but not so out-of-state women.

This is not only gender discriminatory but also denies the idea of India as one nation. The question to raise is why do women in J&K need certificates of residence to buy property. Why can any Indian not buy property in J&K if it is an integral part of India? Or does Article 370 only serve to prevent local women as well as citizens of the rest of India from exercising constitutional rights while it does not prevent arbitrary rule by Delhi as and when it pleases?

May be Article 370 warrants a wider application. In Goa,local citizens resent citizens of India from outside Goa buying ‘their’ property. The Shiv Sena feels possessive about not the citizens of Maharashtra but just the Marathi-speaking minority having jobs there. In Tamil Nadu,the government wishes to run its own foreign policy regarding Sri Lanka and forces the PM to kowtow to its wishes. Will every state have its own Article 370?

Sixty-six years should be long enough to create a single India where all citizens have the right to live,work,buy property wherever they like,and marry without gender bias. Is that too much to ask?