Omar Abdullah is a passionate man, and his passion makes him say the wrong things at the wrong time. At a public rally recently in Kashmir in the presence of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi, he vowed that any abrogation of Article 370 would be over his “dead body”.
For good measure, the Chief Minister presumed that the people of Jammu & Kashmir would whole-heartedly follow him in his oath, because he actually said that the abrogation would be “over our dead bodies”. Does he really believe that the people of Jammu and ladakh share his opinionIJ
The valorous Omar, who is willing to lay down his life for the continuation of Article 370, does not show similar courage when elected panchayat members in his State are threatened, shot at or shot dead by militants. The Chief Minister also does not threaten to lay down his life when terrorists attack military personnel and grievously injure or kill them. He never once resolves that any further violence of this sort would be “over my dead body”. Omar is a clever man; he commits what he is capable (or desirous) of doing. He knows that Article 370 is not going to be abrogated tomorrow, and he can thus take a hard line on the matter. He also knows that he is incapable or inadequately committed to tackling militancy in his State, and so he does not want to stake his life over that. Omar's current sabre-rattling, thus, is at its meaningless best.
The Chief Minister has taken on Bharatiya Janata Party veteran lK Advani on Article 370, because the latter dared to yet again express an opinion that has been the stated position of both the BJP and its earlier avatar, the Jan Sangh. It was one of Advani’s recent blog postings that got Omar’s goat. There is nothing illegitimate, and certainly nothing illegal, in the BJP leader’s remarks that the provision which accords a special autonomous status of sorts to J&K, has not been good for the State, and that various Congress leaders including Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel had vehemently opposed it when it had been mooted. These leaders gave in only out of consideration for Jawaharlal Nehru. Advani did not say anything that deserved a shrill response of the kind Omar gave; he was only accurately quoting history and underlining his party's position on the issue. All that Advani said was, “The country eagerly awaits the day when Article 370 would be repealed, and the two Vidhans (Constitutions) also would become one.”
The Chief Minister claims that the Article “acts a bond between J&K and the country”. How soIJ By giving the State its own Constitution; by giving it the right to have its own laws in all matters except defence, foreign affairs, finance and communication; by ensuring that no other law of the country would be applicable to J&K unless the State Assembly concurs with it. In other words, the State ‘integrates' with the rest of the country because its people live by a set of laws which is different from that which the people in other parts of India follow! This is indeed a strange way to bond. No wonder Article 370 has failed in its stated mission. In fact, the general feeling is that J&K can be better integrated with mainstream India by the repeal of Article 370.
Omar and the other proponents of Article 370 seem to forget that the provision was never meant to exist forever. It was a temporary measure that the post-independent policy makers resorted to, given the special conditions under which the State's then ruler signed the Instrument of Accession with India. If that purpose of ‘integration' has not been achieved in six decades — which is supposedly why the Article still exists — can Omar offer a time-line by which the situation will get ‘normal’ for the provision to goIJ The fact is that such ‘normalcy' will come only when the Article is effectively done away with.
The argument that abrogation of the Article will fuel secessionist tendencies in the State and promote militancy is laughable. The constitutional provision that has existed for more than 60 years has neither ended secessionist movements in the State nor checked militancy. In fact, it would not be wrong to say that both these evils have flourished under — and because of — Article 370, since the provision has tied the Centre's hands in many ways to deal with the challenges. The Article has also created a divide between the people of Jammu and ladakh and Kashmir. Omar should know all of this better than anyone else.
As for his jibe that Advani should also blog about “what constitutional mechanism he plans to follow to repeal Article 370” and that, “I might learn something from his wisdom”, the Chief Minister is being plainly petty. Omar knows the constitutional process well enough, just as he knows that given present political equations, the Article cannot be repealed. Advani does not need an upstart to remind him on these matters. Yet that does not take away the BJP veteran's right to stand up against Article 370. To do so is not treason; it's a service to the nation.
But the J&K Chief Minister’s childish (the most charitable explanation one can offer for Omar's conduct) swipe does not end at that. On Advani's sensible advice that he refrain from using strong words like ‘cheating' and ‘deceitful' in connection with those who favour the repeal of Article 370, Omar responded, “Instead of advising me to show restraint, Advaniji should devote some blog space to explain his silence between 1998-2004” (the period the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance was in power). Omar must rejig his memory. Neither Advani nor the BJP was silent. Both held on to their opposition to the Article. But, since the issue was not on the common agenda of the NDA, it never came to be either discussed or debated officially by the Government. As Deputy Prime Minister and Union Home Minister, Advani was part of an NDA regime, and he obviously didn’t rake up the subject matter of Article 370 then in his official capacity.
But Omar's most interesting (and silliest) take on the matter is this: He ridicules “secular” Advani for “raising the bogey” of Article 370. The slanderous attempt by self-styled secularists like Omar to equate the demand for abrogation of Article 370 with the promotion of a communal agenda is as old as it is materially hollow. Does Omar believe that the provision is designed to serve the interests of the Muslims of the StateIJ If that is not so, how does the call for its repeal become ‘communal'IJ But, if pandering to the interests of a particular community has all along been the intent of the Article, let Omar have the courage to admit it. In that case, Article 370 must even more certainly go.
