Archives

Asia Watch by Lynn Ockersz

Devolution or regional autonomy? This is a prime focus in the debate currently raging in Indian political circles on how to defuse the Kashmir conflict. While some sections of prominent Indian political opinion are said to be considering greater devolution for Kashmir Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Farooq Abdullah, is believed to be making a case for regional autonomy for the trouble-hit state.

With State legislature elections for Kashmir fast approaching, the devolution or regional autonomy debate seems to be hotting-up in tandem. It is important to note that the National Conference Party of Farooq Abdullah is in this instance not making a secessionist demand by taking a pro-regional autonomy stance. Essentially the political status which is being claimed for Kashmir by the NCP, if these reports are to be believed, is that of a state within, for instance, the US federation. The powers/envisaged, accordingly, are wider than those currently exercised by an Indian state, whose financial ties with the centre have been usually strong. It is a habitual trait among commentators to refer to India as a "Union of States", with the emphasis falling on the "Union" component of the proposition.

Be that as it may, the next couple of months could prove, crucial for Centre-Kashmir relations, as the election campaign hots up. The National Conference Party in which the Abdullah family has figured prominently over the decades, has preferred to remain with the Indian Union, although it has on and off, tried to distance itself from the centre and resisted rigid central government control. From the point of view of the Centre, therefore, "doing business" with the National Conference would be the preferred alternative to dealing with more hardline indigenous organisations such as the National Hurriyat Conference for instance.

As to whether the Kashmir conflict could be kept within containable limits would depend considerably on whether the Kashmir state elections are seen as "free and fair" by the Kashmiris themselves. It would be remembered that the spark which lit the Kashmiri flame, which is now proving difficult to control, was the state legislature poll of 1983, which was seen as rigged by the centre. Many Kashmiri Moslems felt they were disfranchised and robbed of their right to political self-determination. Thus began the Kashmir troubles. Referring to what is considered the principal demands of the Kashmiri people, Ghulam Nabi Azad, an opposition Congress MP was heard to thunder thus in the Upper House of Parliament:" And what is their right? Their basic right is free and fair elections in the state. If you ensure free and fair elections, this would be the first step towards resolving the dispute."

There is more than meets the eye in conflict situations such as these. It would be simplistic to assume that a "clean" election alone would douse all the flames in Kashmir, although this is an essential requirement. In Kashmir today, there are also the "Jehadis", whose prime inspiration is believed to be Osama bin Laden, whose Al Qaeda network is at the helm of the resistance against the Northern alliance-led government and its Western backers in Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, a "free and fair" election would strengthen the hands of the Kashmiri state government against all anti-India forces. For, an election which will be free of the taint of unfairness would be construed as meeting, to a degree, the Kashmiris' political aspirations and their demand for self-determination within the bounds of the Indian Constitution.

Meanwhile, India would do well to defuse bilateral tensions with Pakistan because these differences keep the region on the boil and invite meddling by external forces, which are hostile to democracy and secularism.

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager