The PDP-BJP alliance is a historic one. It’s also a huge challenge, given the parties’ many ideological differences. On paper, they have found a middle path on some contentious issues and kept others aside. But difficult ground realities of the State threaten the political equation
The fractured verdict thrown by the Jammu & Kashmir electorate in the 2014 Assembly poll turned out to be history in the making. The National Conference and the Congress, which had been ruling the State in alliance, were thrown out of the race. Instead, the Peoples Democratic Party, with support from the Bharatiya Janata Party, has now formed the Government. On March 1, PDP patron Mufti Mohammed Sayeed took oath as the 12th Chief Minister of the Muslim-majority State. The BJP’s support ensured Mr Sayeed’s return to the top seat after more than nine years.
The phenomenal rise of the BJP in the Hindu-majority Jammu province paved the way for the party to partner with the PDP. This, in turn, lead to the formation of the first non-Congress, non-NC Government in the State. But the coalition between the PDP and BJP has not been an easy task. It took more than two months for the two parties to iron out the creases and establish an Agenda of Alliance before actually forming the Government. Mr Sayeed compared the process to the joining of the North Pole and the South Pole.
Numerically, the PDP-BJP coalition was the most viable option for Government formation in Jammu & Kashmir. The PDP dominated the election tally with 28 seats while the BJP came a close second with 25 seats in the 87-member Assembly. The NC and the Congress, with 15 and 10 seats respectively, as well as a few non-aligned members tried hard to keep the BJP out of race. The arithmetic complexity led to imposition of Governor’s rule on January 9 after then outgoing Chief Minister Omar Abdullah refused to continue in a caretaker position.
The BJP had miserably failed to woo voters in the Kashmir valley and its core strength emerged from the Jammu region where it dismantled Congress castles. likewise, the PDP dominated the valley to replace the NC hegemony but one of the key factors for its gain was the fear of a BJP win. In many Kashmir constituencies, the voter turnout increased because poll-boycott reserved a chance for BJP candidates’ win. The PDP was the natural beneficiary of the situation.
Therefore, aligning with a party against whose ideology and ingress the election had been contested was the toughest challenge for the Mufti. Though PDP did not propagate its vague self-rule ideology in the election, it did seek votes on the promise of safeguarding Article 370, abrogating the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, continuing the dialogue process with Pakistan and the the separatists for resolution of the Kashmir issue, rehabilitating former militants and allowing for free movement of goods and people between the divided parts of Jammu & Kashmir.
The BJP, on the other hand, wanted dialogue on the efficacy of Article 370 — a modified way to challenging the special status of Jammu & Kashmir. Before the election, the BJP-led Government at the Centre had called off Foreign Secretary level talks with Pakistan over the issue of Kashmiri separatist leaders meeting the Pakistani High Commissioner in New Delhi.
But forging an alliance was a compulsion for the PDP and the BJP. The PDP could have ill-afforded to remain away from power any longer. It had not been in Government since July 2008 when it brought down its Ghulam Nabi Azad-led ruling coalition at the peak of Amarnath land row. This decision pushed the PDP and the Congress poles apart and paved the way for the NC to retain power for six years.
The BJP, on the other hand, did not emerge as a dominating political force on the performance of local leaders but it was exclusively the Modi-wave that made the difference. The partnership in power was the only option for the BJP to consolidate its emerging vote base in the State. There was no guarantee for the sustenance of the Modi-effect. Also, the poll result in Delhi, wherein the BJP performed miserably, came as a wake-up call for the party. This is why the process of coalition formation gathered pace after February 10.
First, the BJP closed the chapter of a Hindu Chief Minister for Jammu & Kashmir. Then, it withdrew the claim for a rotational Chief Minister, allowing the Mufti to rule for a full six-year term. In the Agenda of Alliance, to be implemented by a committee comprising the presidents of both parties along with four members from each party, it has been decided that status quo will be maintained on Article 370.
“While recognising the different position and appreciating the perceptions BJP and PDP have on the constitutional status of Jammu & Kashmir, considering the political and legislative realities, the present position will be maintained on all Constitutional provisions including special status,” the Agenda reads.
The parties have arrived at workable solutions to tackle other contentious issues like the settlement of West Pakistani Refugees and de-notification of Disturbed Areas, a pre-requisite for removal of Afspa. In turn, the Mufti has agreed to constitute a commission for delimiting of legislative Assembly constituencies. The delimitation has a Supreme Court moratorium until 2026. It is expected that Jammu will get more Assembly seats after delimitation. On the face of it, the BJP and the PDP have agreed to focus more on development rather than conflicting political ideologies.
However, they will still be walking on a razor’s edge. This can be understood from the furor created by the Mufti’s first statement as Chief Minister, wherein he reportedly appreciated the role of Pakistan, the militants and the Hurriyat in ensuring the smooth conduct of polls in Jammu & Kashmir. This is being seen as an insult to the Army, the security forces, the polling staff and the electorate who actually turned the 2014 poll into a success. The Congress raised the issue in Parliament forcing Home Minister Rajnath Singh to explain the Government’s position. Mr Singh dissociated the Government from the Mufti’s statement.
Objectively, while the role of the security forces and the eagerness of the voters can’t be undermined in evaluating the successful conduct of polls, it is a fact that the level of violence was low and that separatist leaders did not pursue their poll-boycott campaigns, as they had done in the past.
A fidayeen attack in Uri in December and the killing of some political workers during the campaign did not impact the poll process. Separatist leaders were detained but their anti-poll campaign was not vigorous. The Mufti’s insistence on invoking Pakistan, the Hurriyat and the Kashmir issue reflects the ground realities. Though he swears by his being “Indian by conviction”, his references are bound to create controversies. The real test will come when concrete steps are initiated to implement the political part of the Agenda for Alliance. That will decide the sustainability of the coalition.