Auto-Motives

Farooq Abdullah’s sent A.B. Vajpayee a time-bomb. Apart from obvious recommendations such as the removal of the word ‘temporary’ from Article 370, the cumbersome document, entitled ‘Report of the State Autonomy Committee’, raises some new, and equally controversial, demands. Such as asking for exemption from Part III of the Indian Constitution - the section that deals with Fundamental Rights. Since Jammu and Kashmir is the only state which also has a state constitution, the committee suggests it be allowed to frame its own fundamental rights.

The committee, headed by Moin-ud-din Shah, state minister for urban development, was set up in 1996 soon after the assembly elections. But the report was completed this year. In fact, one of its more high-profile members, Dr Karan Singh, quit midway as he didn’t agree with some recommendations.

"The reason why this was set up," says National Conference MP Omar Abdullah, "is that we had the sovereign assurance of a prime minister of India (Narasimha Rao), that short of azadi, the sky’s the limit. And we’re not asking for azadi. Nor for anything new. After all, our poll plank in the 1996 elections was a promise of greater autonomy."

Regardless, the Central government is taken aback by some of the committee’s recommendations. Among them:

For instance, the suggestion to substitute the prefix ‘temporary’ to Art 370 with ‘special’ is against the very grain of the bjp manifesto which has been promising voters it would do away with the said article giving special status to the state. But party politics aside, the government feels that giving j&k special status would only lead to other states making similar demands. It may be an emotional issue for the j&k government, but "that’s exactly why," says a government official, "we want to do away with the article, as it promotes emotional separatism."

Omar Abdullah, however, sees nothing wrong in this demand. Or with the suggestion that Art 356-360 (to impose Central rule in states) be made non-applicable to j&k. "This isn’t something j&k is demanding. It’s something every state’s asking for," he said.

But what has really given the Centre a jolt is the demand for separate Fundamental Rights. According to sources, the Central government note is going to rebut this suggestion with a simple query: What if the state constitution omits right to freedom of religion? Or right to freedom of speech?

There’s also a perception that with this report, the CM intends to make a dent in the hardline votebank since early indications are that the Hurriyat may contest the 2002 elections. Only this can explain some of the demands that almost border on the ridiculous. Like the suggestion to revive nomenclatures such as the sadr-i-riyasat and wazir-e-azam for the governor and CM respectively. The wazir-e-azam is a title conferred on the prime minister rather than the chief minister. And while the committee’s not asking for a change in the CM’s powers, it is insisting on adopting the pre-1953 title. Interestingly, PoK has a ‘prime minister’ as its head.

Although National Conference leaders laugh away the PoK comparison, they claim there’s a certain logic in asking for the title’s revival: the sadr-i-riyasat came from within the state, and was never an outsider. The demand itself is logical and harmless, but the Centre feels even a ‘symbolic’ reversion like this is too loaded with significance and will mean ceding too much.

The committee has also asked that the state be allowed greater autonomy in other areas as well. According to the Instrument of Accession, the Union government controlled defence, communications and external affairs, other subjects were left to the state. However, this arrangement became redundant after the Constitution of India came out with the state, union and concurrent lists. Now, the committee’s making a case for reverting to the earlier position.

Omar Abdullah, however, says that the state government won’t be rigid and is amenable to negotiation. "The Constitution of India envisages the country as a federal structure. Let’s build on that. We are not asking for autonomy for j&k alone. This is the demand of every state. But you could start with j&k as it already has a special status," he said.

The Centre, on its part, claims it’s not against autonomy, especially financial and administrative. What scares it is the range of powers the state’s demanding. All of which make this another controversial chapter in j&k’s already turbulent history.