Opinion: Governance in Kashmir
Breaking News : The question of identity | Opinion      Man arrested with 11 kgs of poppy in Poonch | J&K      Kanpur painter spits gutkha on white paper, sells it as abstract art | Satire      Triple Talaq Illegal, Says Supreme Court In Landmark Judgement: 10 Points | National     
Opinion: Governance in Kashmir

 

Opinion: Governance in Kashmir

Published on :6 Jun,2017 By :- UNT News

Sponsored by : Nexa Peaks Auto


Rayat Bahra University

Srinagar:
The origin of Kashmir dispute lies in that partition of the sub-continent. The politics of subcontinent greatly affected the princely states and Kashmir was no more exceptional. The oppressed nature of politics in the state gave birth Muslim Conference in 1932 to achieve responsible government. It was under the leadership of late Sheikh Abdullah that the organisation was renamed to National Conference in 1939. The politics of protests and anti-Maharaja sentiment led to the strong involvement of both INC and Muslim League in the state, resulted in divided public opinion, both the parties claimed to be the well-wishers of the people. The state under Maharaja acceded with India conditionally on certain subjects like defence, foreign affairs and communication. State’s accession with union of India was challenged from day one, both in Kashmir as well as from Pakistan. The tall leader like Abdullah too also lost his stature as he was criticised by the parties who were either in favour of Independence or accession with Pakistan and state entered into the politics of protests and agitations. 
Though, the leadership provided by Sheikh Abdullah in the early years from 1948 when he was installed as the Prime Minister of the state tried to improve the governance in the state. Yet, since partition, Jammu and Kashmir State has rarely witnessed good governance. The major factors responsible for this dilemma have been the political instability, overt and covert destabilisation of political institutions by the central governments and deficiency of determination of the local political leadership. All state political stalwarts from Sheikh Abdullah to present day Mehbooba continued obedient to their kings in Delhi and cultivated their interests for retaining or obtaining power. The relationship of state with India was determined by article 370 or in another name greater autonomy was provided to the state within the framework of Indian constitution. Abdullah was dismissed and jailed during 1953 to 60s; the arrest of Abdullah changed the political discourse of state as he was replaced by weak and incompetent administrator Ghulam Mohammad Bakshi, Sadiq and others. The state governments were neither responsive to people’s aspirations, nor run on the moralities of accountability. This policy of the central government to install week administrator’s created democratic deficit in the state. There was hardly any presence of opposition to the main stream politics except the Jammu based Praja Parishad. The State's Constitution was overridden by the Centre's orders. Its basic structure was altered. The Governor replaced the Sadar-i-Riyasat and state’s Prime Minister was replaced by Chief Minister. Debating the Article 370, has it retained its original position or not. The answer to this question is a giant `No', as 47 orders have been made applicable to the state of Jammu and Kashmir from 1956 to 1994. Similarly out of the 97 union subjects 94 have been made applicable to the state. This clearly shows that article 370 has been eroded from time and became a dead provision. Thus the autonomy as visualized by article 370 has been eroded extensively. 
The return of Abdullah from a separatist tendency to mainstream politics in 1975 by singing the infamous Kashmir Accord was yet another setback to Kashmir autonomy. The Sheikh who claimed to be the tallest leader surrendered the Plebiscite Front for which he was in jail. The message was clear from the centre that the clock cannot be turned back. The return of Sheikh Abdullah could not provide good governmence during the second spell of his term as Chief Minister, because of some secretive compulsions and the Centre’s conspiracies.  Abdullah died in 1982 and Farooq Abdullah, his son, assumed the party’s leadership. What followed was shameful. The death of Sheikh created a leadership vacuum both within the ranks of NC as well as in the state. The Central government now finds it easy to replace one administrator with another week and incompetent leaders. Farooq was replaced by the G.M.Shah. These were the years of rapid concentration of power in the hands of New Delhi Governments and growing intolerance toward all opposition in the state.
The rigged elections of 1987 was turning point in the history of Kashmir, the state entered into a new phase, the emergence of armed struggle and the direct central rule under the most communal governor, Shri Jagmohan. The unfortunate migration of Kashmir pandits from the valley in the back drop of armed struggle and communal governor led to the further governance and democratic deficit in the state. New Delhi’s tactics generated a wave of widespread anger and freedom movement was reborn with fierce means this time, deteriorated by poor governance and extensive corruption. To quote one of the Kashmiri opposition leaders Abdul Ghani Lone, “It was this (subversion of democracy) that motivated the young generation to say ‘to hell with the democratic process and all that this is about’ and they said, ‘let’s go for the armed struggle.”  

The period of Farooq Abdullah from 1996-2002 of NC’s rule was only on papers, the collapse of administration and institutions in the state was a major problem created by the counter insurgency operations against armed struggle. The use of black laws like AFSPA, PSA, TADA and POTA further created legitimacy crises in the state.  People have suffered since and that is our contemporary history which needs no description.