J&K Delimitation report: Whose purpose does it serve?

The Delimitation Commission report is not rooted in the ground realities of Jammu & Kashmir

Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the constitutional changes of August 5, 2019, the problems for Jammu & Kashmir have only multiplied. Ground realities in Jammu & Kashmir belie the promise that the repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution, which granted special status to the erstwhile state, will usher in an era of development and employment opportunities.

Against this backdrop, and unease among the people of both the Jammu and Kashmir regions, the preliminary report of the Delimitation Commission, has added to the confusion. It seems from a cursory examination of the report, the delimitation exercise has been done more with politically motivated electoral purposes than meeting constitutional obligations and making life easier for the people.

The delimitation of constituencies was meant primarily to carve out constituencies keeping in view the size of their population and, as is the case of hilly areas of Jammu & Kashmir, their topography. However, the preliminary report suggests these factors have been ignored. There are allegations that politics of a particular kind received precedence over other factors. There is little doubt that elections are about politics, and so is, to an extent, the delimitation process itself. More importantly, elections and the delimitation process are about ensuring the people's well-being, which the exercise has ignored.

Jammu & Kashmir has a special status because of its strategic location, diversity, and plurality. The preliminary report has ignored these factors, giving credence to the allegations that there is more to the report than what meets the eye.

Apart from the constitutional requirement of undertaking a delimitation process, another equally important factor should always be considered in the case of Jammu & Kashmir and the northeastern states - the ethos and history of these areas. This ethos is sought to be sacrificed at the altar of political and ideological considerations of the ruling dispensation and, above all, the electoral maths to guarantee victory.

The high point of the creation of Jammu & Kashmir as a state was its regional, linguistic and ethnic diversity with three regions - Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh (now a separate Union Territory). It was the only Muslim majority state of India bordering the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. This Muslim majority character has become an irritant in the new political atmosphere. But, in the plan of the framers of a secular state, it was an excellent rebuff to the narrow and religion-based neighbouring country, and that stood the test of the time.

The draft report of the Delimitation Commission, as shared by the panel with its associate members (five Lok Sabha MPs from the UT), has stirred a hornet's nest with political parties (barring the Bharatiya Janata Party) and social organisations in both Jammu and Kashmir regions, questioning the logic behind its redrawing of boundaries of the Lok Sabha and Assembly seats.

There are two central irritants reflected in the preliminary report. The one having the most severe consequences is the attempt of the Delimitation Commission to consider the Union Territory as a single unit to redraw Lok Sabha constituencies, an apparent effort to erase the regional characters of both Jammu and Kashmir, respectively. This has already created a hue and cry in both regions.

A sample to this effect is adding the assembly constituencies from two border districts of the Jammu region- Poonch and Rajouri- to the Anantnag Lok Sabha seat of the Kashmir Valley. The move is untenable in all respects, namely geographical, political, and regional. It has led to doubts in the people's minds, particularly in the Valley, about the real motive behind treating the Union Territory as a single unit.

The Poonch and Rajouri areas of the Jammu region were earlier part of the Jammu-Poonch Lok Sabha constituency. Apart from disturbing the identity of the two areas, this arbitrary proposal of "unification" of the two regions has overlooked the geographical factors which are of immense importance in a hilly area such as Jammu and Kashmir.

A critical purpose of delimitation is to keep the geographical factors in mind to make it easy for the people to get their problems redressed. In this instance, Anantnag (Kashmir region) and Poonch-Rajouri (Jammu region) are separated by the towering Pir Panjal range of mountains with a road connecting the two regions on this side, the Mughal Road, which is only a fair-weather road. That would imply that residents of Poonch-Rajouri will have to traverse through Jammu to reach Anantnag, a distance of nearly 500 kilometres, to meet their MP if they belong to that area. The same would be true for the residents of Anantnag if someone from the Poonch-Rajouri area becomes their MP. The question is, how will this provide better administration?

The second irritant has been the manner in which the constituencies meant for the Scheduled Castes have been reserved and de-reserved, or some other constituencies scrapped to deprive the strong claimants of other political parties a chance. And at the same time, questions are also being raised on the process of reserving seats for the Scheduled Tribes category, which is already mired in conflict between the Gujjars (nomads) and Paharis. At least in the case of Scheduled Tribes, this arrangement has been questioned even by the BJP.

Jammu & Kashmir has a chequered history of delimitation of constituencies. The latest draft report adds another chapter to this history. It has also sought to alter further the regional character of Jammu & Kashmir, with Ladakh already having been separated.

(Anil Anand is a journalist)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.