In respect of the Pakistani side of Line of Control, no serious discussion on the pattern of self-governance is really called for. Where is the question of any such governance, when the entire Pakistan itself has been ruled, for about half the period of its existence, by one military dictator or the other?
If no respect is shown to the democratic aspirations of the people of Pakistan, how could the military rulers entertain any idea about grant of autonomy in practice to the government of PoK? In fact, they did not make even pretence in this regard. For example, after General Zia-ul-Huq coup in 1977, the ?Pok? Assembly was dissolved, Parliamentary system scrapped and Presidential form of government set-up. An army brigadier was appointed its Chief-executive. This arrangement continued till 1985, when elections were held after amending the rules in such a manner that the opposition parties were marginalised. Even during the period of civilian rule in Pakistan, the conditions were manipulated to bring ruling party of Islamabad in power in Muzaffarabad. Throughout the period of its existence, the PoK government has virtually remained a proxy of the government of Pakistan.
It is significant to note that under the Constitution Act, 1974, ?Pok? Council was set-up with Chief-executive of Pakistan as chairman, PoK President, as vice chairman and Pakistan Minister of Kashmir affairs and Northern Areas as secretary. It had executive and legislative jurisdiction over 52 subjects, leaving little area for exercise of powers by the PoK government and Assembly. It was given out that the Council would act as a ?link? for coordination. But in practice it has always a decisive say. Its Chairman enjoys the sole power of declaring emergency and dissolving the Assembly. Further, the Act of 1974 stipulates that PoK Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the decisions of aforesaid Council.
In the circumstances, the ?Pok? government enjoys in practice no independence in governance. Its financial powers, too, are limited. Nor can it make any key appointment. Its Chief Secretary, Finance Secretary and Inspector-General are appointed by the Central government. Whatever little sphere for exercise of independent power exists, its has all along been monopolised by a small clique of politicians?Sardar Abul Qayyum Khan and his son, Barrister Sultan Mahmood, Raja Mumtaz Rathore etc. In respect of Central financial assistance, the ?PoK area? has also not been liberally treated. On the other hand, a sizeable section of its population has suffered displacement on account of Mangla Dam the benefits of which have largely gone to West Punjab.
So far as Northern Areas are concerned, these have been virtually incorporated in Pakistan and are directly administered by the Ministry in Islamabad. A subtle demographic change is also being brought about by settling a number of Sunnis in areas where Shias and Ismailis have at present majority. The legislative council of Northern Area is merely an advisory body.
Demilitarisation
Equally untenable is President Musharraf'sreference to human rights violations and his proposals with regard to demilitarisation. The sizeable presence of the Indian army currently in Jammu and Kashmir is primarily to deal with the deadly forces of subversion and terrorism that have been let loose in the State by Pakistan'sISI and its outfits-forces that have been equipped with and trained in the most lethal modern weapons designed for carrying out guerilla warfare. If operation of these forces brought is to a halt by the ISI and if the infrastructure of terror built by it, both within and outside the Valley, is dismantled, the Indian army would go back to its barracks and restrict itself to its routine duty of guarding the borders. Clearly, for bringing about demilitarisation in the State, the network of terror and subversion has to be removed first. The cart cannot be put before the horse. President Musharraf idea of securing demilitarisation without creation of conditions that make the presence of army unnecessary is not at all practical. It would merely result in spilling of more innocent blood. Despite the presence of Army, the terrorist-outfits like Lakshkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Muhmmad and Hizbul Mujahidden are able to terrorise the common people, particularly in the remote areas. On October 4, 2006, for example, they mercilessly butchered a Dental Surgeon of Handwara with a barber razor because he was considered to have disobeyed their ?Islamic Instructions?.
Joint Management
No less unconvincing is President Musharraf idea of joint-management of joint control. Apart from its imprecision, the idea does not even deal with and elementary question: what would happen if there is difference of opinion or approach between joint managers or controllers? In this connection, a few other models, such as Andorra, Triestie and Northern Ireland modern have also been mentioned. None of these models or any other institutional arrangement can work as long as forces of fanaticism and fundamentalism continue to operate at the ground-level. Such forces would subvert the system from within and establish their hegemony. If any of their ?diktats? is not followed, they would revert to their old game and resort to terror-tactics. Free-movement across the ?Line of Control? is also not feasible. Anyone entering Kashmir Valley or Jammu Division from Pakistan, could, later on, move to other parts of India as well.
Regionalisation
President Musharraf'ssuggestion to split Jammu and Kashmir into regions?Jammu, Srinagar and Laddakh on the Indian side and Northern Areas and PoK on the Pakistan side?is also vague. He has not even cared to spell out whether his suggestion includes grant of autonomous or semi-autonomous status to these regions. So far as the Indian side of Kashmir is concerned, none of these regions is a homogenous entity. For example, Jammu region has a substantial area of Muslim-majority. Likewise, Kargil district of Laddakh is dominated demographically by the Shia-Muslims who are different from the Buddhists of Leh region and the Sunnis of Kashmir Valley. Gujjars and Bakarwals have their own distinct way of life.
There would be too many claimants for separate identities. New grievances would be dished out and existing ones exaggerated. Given the populist disposition of local political leaders, they would attempt to build ?separate mosques of one brick each? and carve out their own Immamats. To prop up their leadership, some of them may not even hesitate to undertake ethnic cleansing in their little courtyards. Friction generated in the process could badly singe, if not burn, the entire fabric of the State. While petty ethnic lords would fight over their petty autonomies, the poor would continue to wallow in poverty, the sick would continue to remain unattended and the homeless would continue to be without a roof over their heads.
On both the sides of the ?line of actual control?, the basic problems would be solved not by pandering to the ambitions of tin-pot demagogues, thriving on slogans of separate identities, but by building up higher motivation and giving priority to commonalities and using the resources, both human and material, to eliminate hunger, ignorance and disease among the masses. The experience of Yugoslavia shows how murderous ethnic warlords could be and to what extent human mind could be demented by the drug of ethnicity.
India'sone billion people with about 400 languages and dialects and different religions and local identities are learning to co-exist and move towards the realisation of its overall belief??One in all and all in one?. Let this movement be not disturbed by imprecise ideas rooted in superficial thinking.
(The writer is a former Governor of Jammu & Kashmir and a former Union Minister.)
Comments