Had the BJP conceded to the PDP's demands, Kashmiri separatists would have portrayed it as an act of retreat by a defeated Indian state and used it to embolden the votaries of limited accession
The Bharatiya Janata Party has done well to reject the atrocious pre-conditions set by Peoples Democratic President president Mehbooba Mufti for Government formation in Jammu & Kashmir. This development took place on March 18, a day after Mufti met BJP president Amit Shah in New Delhi. BJP general secretary and the party’s point-man for Jammu & Kashmir, Ram Madhav, issued a statement that day from the national capital, saying that, “A Government cannot be formed on the basis of conditions”. This was most appropriate and a candid response to the PDP’s ill-motivated pre-conditions.
The stand of the BJP will surely be appreciated across the nation in general and in Jammu & Kashmir in particular. It will silence the so-called ‘secular’ critics, who until now had been questioning, day-in and day-out, the party’s alliance with what they called a ‘pro-Pakistan’ and ‘pro-separatist’ outfit. In fact, the people of Jammu and the internally-displaced Kashmiri Hindus have already welcomed the BJP’s rational and nationalist stand. They have opined that it will go a long way in sending the right message to Kashmiri separatists, their cohorts in the so-called Kashmiri parties and to the political establishment in the State — that Prime Minister Narendra Modi means serious business in the separatist and militant-infested Jammu & Kashmir State.
Three of the most controversial pre-conditions set by the PDP are: Transfer of the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation-run and controlled Dulhasti (Jammu) and Uri-II (Kashmir) power projects to the Jammu & Kashmir Government; revocation of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act from certain areas of Jammu & Kashmir, including Srinagar in Kashmir and Kathua in Jammu; and vacation of certain lands which the Army has been lawfully using for long for training purposes and military operations to defend the borders and maintain peace in the restive and militant-infested areas of the State. Other demands of the PDP include two smart cities, one each for Jammu and Kashmir; another financial package for the flood-affected people in the valley; a free-hand to run the Government so formed; and result-oriented talks with Pakistan on the Kashmir issue.
For decades, Pakistan and its Kashmir-based agents, Kashmiri political parties such as the PDP and the National Conference, and Kashmiri civil society members including the Kashmir High Court Bar Association and the Kashmir Economic Alliance, have denounced Afspa as a ‘draconian’ law, contemptuously termed the NHPC-run power projects as “symbols of Indian imperialism”, and described the Indian Army as an “occupying force”.
Even the Kashmiri leadership of the so-called grand old party of India, the Congress, has on umpteen occasions, expressed almost identical views in their desperate bid to strike a chord with the communal constituency in Kashmir. On June 5, 2011, senior Congress leader and then Minister for Irrigation, Taj Mohi-ud-Din even even went to the extent of terming the Government of India-owned NHPC as a replica of the East India Company and charged it with draining the State’s power potential.
“The NHPC is behaving like the East India Company in the State. It is exploiting the water resources of poor States. Their attitude is arrogant and they are contemptuous towards law of the land,” Mohi-ud-Din said while addressing a day-long seminar on the Management of Water Resources in Jammu and Kashmir, organised by the J&K Citizens Welfare Council in Srinagar.
The point is that the PDP, which is a sub-regional party with its support-base confined only to certain parts of the valley, has pitched for power, paisa (money) and Pakistan. The overwhelming view in Jammu, ladakh and the camps housing lakhs of internally-displaced Kashmir Hindus is that the PDP wanted to re-stitch the alliance with the BJP to reassume power for a bigger purpose. This view was based, and rightly so, on the oft-repeated statement of the PDP president that her deceased father, Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, had entered into a post-poll alliance with the BJP “not for power but for fulfilling his vision for J&K” and that she will accept the chair only if she got a definite assurance from the Government of India that she will have “unbridled powers to fulfill her father’s dream and give an effect to her father’s most-cherished vision within a definite timeframe”.
So, what was the vision and dream of her fatherIJ His vision was “self-rule” as succinctly defined in the PDP’s 2014 election manifesto, also called Aspirational Agenda. Apart from seeking semi-independence from India or at least limiting the jurisdiction of New Delhi over J&K to only defence, foreign affairs and communication, the Mufti had also sought equal sovereign powers for Islamabad with New Delhi in this part of the State. In other words, his vision talked about what he himself called “supra-state measures” and “shared sovereignty”. This was the vision of Mufti Mohammed Sayeed. He assumed power as Chief Minister on March 1, 2015, to achieve his mission but only after the Hurriyat leadership gave its consent to the PDP for forming the Government with the BJP.
To put things into perspective, it is desirable to quote verbatim what the incumbent PDP president said on December 12, 2015, while speaking at Agenda Aaj Tak: “With Vajpayee the experience was good, but forming an alliance with the present BJP was not easy for us. It took us two months to decide the agenda of alliance. Hurriyat party was also called and getting consent on most of the issues the Government is working”.
There are potent reasons for the BJP to say what it said in response to the PDP’s pre-conditions. Had the BJP conceded to these demands, Kashmiri separatist and their supporters would have construed it as their crowning glory and a great step forward towards their ultimate goal. They would have seen the acceptance of these three demands not only as an act of retreat by a defeated Indian state from Kashmir, but also used it to further embolden the votaries of limited accession to intensify their activities in the valley, browbeat and blackmail New Delhi, and seek more concessions that will further widen the already wide constitutional, political and emotional gulf between Kashmir and the rest of the country.
(The writer is former Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Jammu)