Storm in a teacup

Storm in a teacup

Between the lines

Timing is an important factor for politicians. They should know when to speak. If they do not know what should be said and when, they can land themselves in trouble. India’s first Governor General C Rajagopalachari was correct in supporting the demand for Pakistan in 1942. But since he was a tall leader of the Congress, which was opposed to the demand at that time, he was not only vehemently criticised but also made to feel like a persona non-grata in the party.

Somnath Chatterjee did not obey the order of his party, the CPM, to resign from the Speakership because he felt the timing was wrong. He was presiding over the session when India’s nuclear treaty had come under the hammer, to be voted upon. The CPM turned him out of the party. Later, many of its stalwarts regretted the decision and felt that they should have waited till after the voting when he would have resigned as he had indicated.

Similarly, Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah’s outburst in the state Assembly had come at a wrong time. His statement that the state acceded to India in 1948, without merging with the country, is correct factually and historically. But the timing of Omar’s enunciation of that was wrong. He should have known that the valley is in ferment and the people are asking for ‘azadi’. His drawing the line between accession and merger at this time was bound to be misunderstood.

On the other hand, Omar Abdullah has diluted his credentials in India. Even the Congress party has said that Omar’s statement in the state Assembly looks different from the not-long-ago affirmation in the Lok Sabha that he was an Indian to the applause of the country.

It is understandable that he was under pressure when he made the statement. More than 100 people had died in those many days due to a clash between those who were stone pelting and the security forces. But the forbearance and stamina of a person is tested during the stress. As the chief minister, he cannot pass the buck. He looked like making the Centre a scapegoat for his troubles. I feel Omar Abdullah lacks maturity, not integrity.

The chief minister’s statement that he is ‘not a puppet’ is another sad commentary on the Indian federal structure. It means that the Centre flexes its muscles whenever it wants to make the states to fall in line. The statement also shows Omar Abdullah in a poor light.

What is the status of Kashmir when the state has signed the instrument of accession and has not merged can be debated by people who have not taken oath under the Indian constitution. When Omar Abdullah assumed office, he swore by the constitution which says that Kashmir is an integral part of India. True, there is a special status given to Kashmir (Article 370) within India, not outside the Union.

Crossing the limits

Sheikh Abdullah paid the price of transgressing that ‘Lashman rekha’ and was under detention for 12 years. He was Jawaharlal Nehru’s best friend who, apparently, felt that the Sheikh had crossed the limits. He returned to power only after avowing allegiance to the Indian constitution and ruled the state as long as he lived.

I do not think that things would come to such a pass again because New Delhi has learnt not to be too sensitive. And I do not see Omar Abdullah becoming a rallying point for the protesters asking for ‘azadi’. The whole thing may not turn out to be more than a storm in a tea cup. Except for the BJP, no other political party has made Abdullah’s remarks an issue.

National Conference, has gone over the exercise of pushing New Delhi to the 1953 position when the Sheikh signed an agreement with New Delhi. Farooq Abdullah, Omar’s father, was then the chief minister. There was so much pressure exerted on Farooq Abdullah that he had to put the resolution passed by the state assembly on autonomy in cold storage.

This does not, however, mean that New Delhi’s encroachment on the power which belongs to the state is justified. Acts which have been passed in the field, other than three subjects — defence, foreign affairs and communications — have to be withdrawn. The Centre cannot occupy the territory that goes beyond three subjects.

It is welcome to note that Omar Abdullah said that Pakistan must be associated with the solution of Kashmir. India has itself said many a time, from the Tashkent declaration to the Shimla agreement that Kashmir remained to be solved. Therefore, no solution can be lasting without Islamabad’s agreement.

What surprises me is that the Kashmiris have not yet realised, after sacrificing thousands of their men, that India would never accept a position where the state opts for a status outside the country. New Delhi may be willing to go beyond the Indian constitution but not the Indian Union. Understandably, the borders can be irrelevant but not erased.

Some quarters in Pakistan have realised this because, as former Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif, said once, “We cannot take Kashmir from you forcibly, nor can you offer it on a platter.” The two countries would have to find a peaceful solution. One Pakistani political commentator wrote some time back: “What we could not win in the war, we cannot get at the negotiating table.”

Get a round-up of the day's top stories in your inbox

Check out all newsletters

Get a round-up of the day's top stories in your inbox