August 2002 Issue

Memorandum To Members Of Parliament

By Tsering Samphel

Ladakh was once an independent Himalayan Kingdom. The political history of Ladakh dates back to 930 A.D. when several small, sovereign principalities outlying the Western Himalayas were integrated and given a unified polity by Lha-Chen-Palgigon.

Ladakh as an independent kingdom gained political status during 15th-16th century when the Namgyal dynasty came into power. The reign of the Namgyal dynasty lasted until 1842 when a Dogra General, Zorawar Singh, annexed Ladakh into the Dogra Empire. After 100 years of Dogra rule, Ladakh alongwith Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of India in 1947.

From the very outset Ladakh’s political merger with J&K did not form any natural cohesion and proved to be a folly throughout. Except for the Dogras’ suzerainty as a commonality, Ladakh is fundamentally different from Kashmir in all respects - culturally, ethnically and linguistically. Over they years the successive governments of the state have  adopted a policy of discrimination  and subversion towards the region with the sole objective of stiffing its people and marginalising its historical, religious and cultural identity.

In the modern times, when the whole subcontinent has passed through the process of decolonisation to enjoy the fruits of national independence, we, the people of Ladakh, and our land still continue to suffer under the old concept of colonial administrative structure, which suited the imperial interests and feudal rulers under the name of the pseudo-state of Jammu and Kashmir. Gandhiji and other national leaders emancipated the Indian masses from the oppressive alien domination, exploitation, feudal and colonial rule, but we, the people of Ladakh, with a distinct identity of our own have been pushed under an oppressive political domination of Kashmiris and denied the fruits of freedom and national independence.

The State of Jammu and Kashmir, the territorial limits of which never formed a natural geopolitical entity in its real sense, still suffers from geopolitical crises and disorder. Frederic Drew who served as Governor in Ladakh in the 19th century remarked that “the territories of Jammu and Kashmir have no other bond of cohesion than the fact of Maharaja’s rule, no simple name for it exists.”

The degree of heterogeneity among the three regions is very high not only in form but also in sharpness. In the case of Ladakh this heterogeneity is expressed not only in terms of its totally different physiographic setting but also manifest in its ethnic composition, language, religion, philosophy and culture. In the last 52 years of independence, we, the people of Ladakh, not only have suffered rampant Kashmiri political domination but also severe drive of separatism.

In the absence of any study which has analysed Ladakh’s problems from a nationalistic and political perspective, our endeavour is three-fold. Firstly, we intend to highlight the emergence and assertion of national identity, patriotism and national integration among the Ladakhis towards our motherland. Secondly, we want to have an objective assessment of the political exploitation of the people of Ladakh and the Ladakhi’s resistance towards Kashmiri sub-nationalism. Thirdly, we are determined to mobilize public opinion and national consensus in order to evolve a new perspective towards the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir State.

The history of modern Ladakh can be considered as the history of the emergence and assertion of nationalism and integration with modern India. Nationalism became the mass ideology propagated and perpetuated by the leadership of Ven. Kushok Bakula. Nationalism remained a dominant ideological creed and became a rallying force among the Ladakhis to fight back the Pakistanis and the Chinese who made frequent bids to conquer our land in 1948, 1962, 1965, 1971 and 1999 wars. The jawans of Ladakh Scouts played an exemplary role in decisively foiling the enemy’s misadventures. The people of Ladakh always stood for national unity and integrity of the country. We always supported the Government in Delhi, irrespective of the political party in power.

At the time of the British plan to partition India we made our stand clear vis-a-vis our position within the State of J&K through our memoranda to the Maharaja of J&K and to the Prime Minister of India.

Based on bitter experience that the people of Ladakh had during the period of a century, their growing apprehensions for future were communicated by the Ladakh Buddhist Association on behalf of the Buddhists of Ladakh and adjoining areas to the Maharaja through a memorandum in the State Praja Sabha. It consists of three alternative proposals:

(1) The Maharaja should govern Ladakh directly without tagging it on to Kashmir valley.

(2) Our homeland be amalgamated with the Hindu majority Jammu and should form a separate province in which adequate safeguard should be provided for distinctive rights and interests of Ladakhis.

(3) Ladakh should be permitted to join East Punjab.

However, the Maharaja’s inability to reply due to sudden developments in the State leading to the relinquishment of his position as a party in respect of our proposals at (1) to (2) made us choose a path independent of him. After mature deliberation it was decided by our people to merge with India straightaway. This historic decision was communicated through a memorandum submitted by Shri Chhewang Rigzin, President, Ladakh Buddhist Association, to Prime Minister Nehru on behalf of the people of Ladakh on 4 May 1949. The memorandum concludes as under: “Ladakh is not prepared to go to Pakistan whatever the result of the plebiscite may be”. The memorandum further put forth a poignant appeal to India:

“We seek the bosom of that gracious mother (India) to receive more nutriment for growth to our full stature in every way. She has given us what we prize above all other things - our religion and culture. The Ashoka wheel on her flag, symbol of goodwill for all humanity, and her concern for her cultural children, calls us irresistibly. Will the great mother refuse to take to her arms one of her weakest and most forlorn and depressed children - a child whom filial love impels to respond to the call?”

Ladakhis have since then consistently been demanding separation from Jammu and Kashmir State and asking for the status of Union Territory. The Government of India, however, never responded favourably to our sincere conviction; instead they made us to be governed by Kashmiris during these decades to our utter ruin. In the post - Independence period we have been reduced to the status of slaves in our own homeland. The impact of oppressive rule unleashed by the J&K Government over us has obliterated our cultural and social ethos.

Sheikh Abdullah’s Government divided Ladakh on communal basis in 1979 by creating two separate districts of Leh and Kargil with Buddhist and Muslim majorities respectively. Subsequently they encouraged communalisation of Ladakh’s political, social and cultural life. Such policies have severely challenged our age-old communal harmony and secular credentials. Therefore, our major struggle in the post - Independence period has been to have an administration in Ladakh to be controlled directly by the central government.

The history of our struggle goes back to 1964 when the first organised effort of Ladakhis against Kashmiri domination and exploitation, under the leadership of Ven. Kushok Bakula manifested itself in a demand for NEFA type Central administration. A similar agitation was launched in 1974 under the leadership of Ven. Lama Lobzang, Thupstan Chhewang and Tsering Samphel demanding Central administration for Ladakh. Again in 1982 a movement was led by Sh. P.Namgyal, M.P. (who subsequently became a Union Minister) demanding Regional Autonomy. But  instead of satisfying our democratic rights and aspirations the successive Kashmiri rulers severally suppressed the democratic movement of peace loving Buddhists through the State police. The agitation being carried out since 1989 by the Ladakh Buddhist Association is by now quite well-known. This was a result of the cumulative alienation of our people. At a time when anti-national activities were gaining momentum in the Valley, resulting in total boycott of Independence Day celebrations, the Farooq government instead of nipping the secessionist movement in the bud, chose to let out his anger on the peaceful demonstrators in Leh resulting in loss of lives. In view of the increasing anti-national activities elsewhere in the State and, therefore, keeping in mind the larger national interest, the Ladakh Buddhist Association suspended its demand for Union Territory and accepted the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC) somewhat on the lines of the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council as a compromise under the tripartite agreement reached between the State government, the Central government and the LBA on 29 October 1989. It is however, most unfortunate that the government did not actually allow any quantum of autonomy to be exercised by the democratically elected LAHDC and also starved it of funds. It is ironical that the same government is now pleading for, greater autonomy, for the state.

Under these circumstances we are left with no choice but to reiterate our long-standing demand for granting Union Territory status to Ladakh, which would guarantee us an administrative set-up to run our own affairs and safeguard our interests.

We are followers of the Buddha. Taking to arms and violence is against our basic philosophy. In fact, our entire movement has throughout been peaceful and democratic. We are also against the violent path followed by people elsewhere in the country. Our main objective is to convey our apprehensions which are related not only to our own problems but also to national security issues. We appeal to the national leaders, intelligentsia and the common people to support our demand for Union Territory status and also help us in our struggle against all forces which are trying to bring destabilization in this frontier region. Their moral and material support to our demand will greatly help in creating a stable and strong national frontier.

It is absolutely erroneous to equate Kashmir valley with the rest of the state. Ladakh constitutes 69.6% of the total J&K territory with a distinct geo-political and geo-cultural identity of its own. The aspirations of the people of Ladakh and their national outlook are different from those of the people of Kashmir. Leaders of Kashmir valley can never be leaders of our people and our assimilation with the people of the Valley is next to impossible. The need of the hour is, therefore, to tackle all the problems relating to Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh in totality. Any attempt at handling the Kashmir issue in isolation by ignoring the problems of Jammu and Ladakh will not only be shortsighted but also counterproductive. Therefore, a realistic solution to the problems in J&K can only be found if the State is reorganised on linguistic and ethnic basis, as was done earlier in the case of other states.

*The author is President Ladakh Buddhist Association

Some time back ‘The Kashmir Times’ and ‘Muslim India’ published a letter written by Late Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah to Col. Nasser of Egypt in 1965. The letter provides us an insight into Sheikh’s interpretation of Sir Owen Dixon’s proposal on a ‘possible and acceptable’ solution of Kashmir. That this view appears to be at variance with the actual proposal called as ‘Dixon Report’ makes it more intriguing. For the benefit of our readers we reproduce both the documents-Sheikh’s letter to Nasser and Dixon’s Report to judge for themselves.

--Editor

The Dixon Report

Text of the summing up and concluding portion of the report of Sir Owen Dixon, UN Representative for India and Pakistan on Kashmir, submitted to the Security Council in September, 1950

It will be seen that two main lines have been pursued in the attempts which have been made to settle the dispute between the two countries about the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The attempt to find a solution by taking a plebiscite over the whole state and so decide by a majority to which country the entire state shall go has its origin in the first proceedings before the Security Council. It would be recalled that by the Resolution of 21 April 1948 the desire of both India and Pakistan that the question of accession of the state to one of them should be decided by free and impartial plebiscite was noted with satisfaction. In the agreed resolution of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, January 5, 1949 there is a recital of the acceptance by the Government of both countries of the principles that the question of the accession of the state to India or Pakistan would be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.

From the date of this resolution until the present there have been continual efforts to bring about conditions in which the preparations for taking a poll might go forward. No one has supposed that they could even begin while much of the respective territories on either side of the cease-fire line were occupied by opposed armies and their base units. There are in addition many other obstacles to the holding of a free and fair plebiscite which must be removed before the state would be ready for the organisation and machinery which the taking of a poll would make necessary. Unfortunately all this has been made to depend upon the agreement of the parties. It is enough to refer to paragraph 2, 6(a) and 10 of the Resolution of 5 January 1949 and to the provisions of the Resolution of 13 August 1948 upon which these paragraphs hang.

There is, I believe on the side of India a conception of what ought to be done to ascertain the real will of the people which is not that tacitly assumed by me. Doubtless it is a conception which Pakistan does not share. The resolution of January 1949 contains some rather general provisions in relation to the holding of the plebiscite and the antecedent steps, and about these more general provisions the parties were able to agree. But to apply propositions of this kind a programme of practical acts and physical events must be agreed on. Without that it is impossible for the Plebiscite Administrator to begin the extensive and difficult work of organising the taking of a poll. It is the practical measures which have proved the obstacle, not the mere general propositions.

Pakistan has complained of India’s failure to agree on the practical measures which must precede the preparations for the actual taking of a poll, and has maintained that this failure is the result of a deliberate policy. But the fact remains that under the resolutions the agreement of India to the course to be pursued in these matters is a condition-precedent to carrying out a plebiscite of the state, and there is no such agreement. Moreover, the United Nations Commission failed in its efforts to secure an agreement upon them; I failed in mine; neither party put-forward any other proposals and both appeared to concur in the view that the possibility of agreement has been exhausted.

The contention of Pakistan that it was incumbent on India to agree did not advance the matter practically. It was in these circumstances that I decided to turn away from a plebiscite of the whole state, an “over all” plebiscite, as a method of solving the problem of Kashmir. Partition of the whole state between the two countries is of course an obvious alternative. But unfortunately the Valley of Kashmir cannot itself be partitioned and it is an area claimed by each side. Pakistan claims it not only because it is predominantly Muslim but also because the Jhelum river flows from it and Pakistan will not readily give up her claim. India is just as insistent upon her claim and has the advantage of possession. Some method of allocating the Kashmir valley to one party or the other is, therefore, essential to any plan of partition.

I am inclined to the view that no method of allocating the Valley to one or other of the contending parties is available except a poll of the inhabitants. By the inhabitants I mean those of them who fulfil whatever may be fixed as the test of eligibility to vote. The difficulty of using the expedient of a plebiscite appears to lie entirely that the plebiscite is held in conditions which make it an effective means of ascertaining the real will of the people independently formed and freely expressed and, on the other hand, certain conceptions or preconceptions of the Indian government. These are based, in part, on what India conceives to be the origin and course of the fighting in 1947 and 1948 and part on her unwillingness to have any interference to the civil administration. In addition, it may be, as I have suggested that a different conception exists of the process of ascertaining the will of the people. Although I myself found no reconciliation of this conflict possible, it may be that with India’s help some resolution of the conflict may be discovered. She may come to realise the necessity of practical  measures which will really secure the freedom and fairness of a plebiscite  which must be paramount over these conceptions. At all events I have formed the opinion that if there is any chance of settling the dispute over Kashmir by agreement between India and Pakistan it now lies in partition and in some means of allocating the Valley rather than in an overall plebiscite. The reason for this may be shortly stated (emphasis added).

The State of Jammu and Kashmir is not really a unit geographically, demographically or economically. It is an agglomeration of territories brought under the political power of One Maharaja. That is the unity it possesses. If as a result of an overall plebiscite the state as an entirety passed to India, there would be large movements of Muslims and another refugee problem would arise for Pakistan who would be expected to receive them in very great numbers. If the result favoured Pakistan a refugee problem, although not of such dimensions, would arise of India, because of the movement of Hindus and Sikhs. Almost all this would be avoided by partition. Great areas of the state are unequivocally Muslim. Other areas are predominantly Hindu. There is a further area which is Buddhist. No one doubts the sentiment of the great majority of the  inhabitants of these areas. The interest of the people, the justice as well as the permanence of the settlement, and the imperative necessity of avoiding another refugee problem all point to the wisdom of adopting partition as the principle of settlement and of abandoning that of an overall plebiscite . But in addition the economic and geographic  considerations point in the same direction. The difficulty  in partitioning the state is to form a sound judgement where the line should be drawn.

While what I have said ideals broadly with the state as a whole, it is by no means easy to fix the limits on each side. That is because it is necessary that the territory allocated to each side should be continuous in itself and should be continugous with that country, because there are pockets of people whose faith and affiliations are different from those of people by whom they are cut off, because the changes in the distribution of population as the result of the troubles cannot be completely ignored and because geographical features remain important in fixing what may prove an international frontier.

I shall not deal with the matter with more particularly, and I say so much only in case the Security Council should be of opinion that it should take further steps to effect a settlement between the parties. But for myself I doubt whether it may not be better to leave the parties to themselves in negotiating terms for settlement of the problem how to dispose of Jammu and Kashmir between them. So far the attitude of the parties has been to throw the whole responsibility upon the Security Council or its representatives of settling the dispute notwithstanding that except by agreement between them there was no means of settling it.

When actual fighting was going on between them it was natural, if not necessary, that the Security Council and the Commission as its delegate should intervene between them and propose terms to stop the hostilities and the question came to be how to settle the rival claims to Kashmir, the initiative was still left with the Security Council and the Commission. The whole question has now been thoroughly discussed by the parties with the Security Council, the Commission and myself and the possible methods of settlement have been exhaustively investigated. It is perhaps best that the initiative should now pass back to the parties. At all events I am not myself prepared to recommend any further course of action on the part of the Security Council for the purpose of assisting the parties to settle between them how the state of Jammu and Kashmir is to be disposed of.

The continued maintenance of two armies facing one another across a ceasefire line is another matter. A danger to peace must exist while this state of things continues. Except for mutual distrust and fear, one of another, there is no reason why the two countries should go on maintaining armies separated only by the ceasefire line. It is a boundary which might be kept by check posts and the like in the same way as any frontier between countries at peace. It is hard to believe that the Indian and Pakistan chiefs of staff would have any difficulty in arranging for a concurrent reduction of forces or in effecting the necessary changes in the manner in which the ceasefire line is held, if they were instructed by their respective governments to meet for the purpose.

Before leaving the subcontinent I addressed to the Prime Minister severally a request that this should be done. It is a matter in which the Security Council is directly concerned because it involves a proximate danger to peace.

I recommended that the Security Council should press the parties to reduce the military strength holding the ceasefire to the normal protection of a peace-time frontier.

In the meantime it is my recommendation that the party of United Nations Military Observers be retained on the ceasefire line. They cannot continue their indefinitely but after a time the question of their withdrawal might be settled in consultation with the two governmentsr

Sheikh’s Letter

“The dispute between India and Pakistan with regard to the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir has strained the relations of the two countries for the last 17 years and now and again has been leading to (such) an aggravating situation that at any time its continued tension may burst into a shooting war leading to devastating consequences in that region of the world. Moreover this situation has saddled both the countries with huge military expenses which has crippled both economically. Yet another tragic aspect of this situation is the continued agony for the 5 million people of the state, whose economy and will-being is completely paralysed, due to the resultant uncertainty and insecurity.

The urgency and importance of an early settlement of this dispute cannot therefore be over-emphasised. Many statesmen and friendly countries have during the past 17 years, made a number of proposals, suggesting a peaceful settlement of the dispute. No doubt the best and most democratic solution could be through a plebiscite should this not be feasible, there are other practicable solutions, suggested in the past. One such solution was made by Sri Owen Dixon, the UN Representative appointed to negotiate a settlement between India and Pakistan. Broadly speaking, Sir Owen Dixon proposed that:

(a) The southern parts of the state comprising Kathua, Jammu and parts of Udhampur districts (now being predominantly Hindu areas) may be annexed with India.

(b) The area, now known as Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan being exclusively Muslim be annexed with Pakistan.

(c) The Valley of Kashmir along with the adjoining areas across Banihal (i.e. the district of Doda and the Niabat of Arnas, Gulab Garh) to be allowed to decide its future through a plebiscite. Leh is to follow the result of plebiscite, held in this territory (Kargil being exclusively Muslim in population to go with the Valley).

“Sir Owen Dixon took a detached view of things and considered this as the best practicable solution under the circumstances. It appears to be a fair method of resolving the present tangle. In order to avoid a number of complications, that might arise by holding a plebiscite immediately in the territory referred to in clause (c) above, a reasonable way can be found in keeping the said territory under UN Trusteeship for a specified period (i.e. 5 to 10 years). The people of the territory can be given an opportunity for the exercise of the right of self determination in a suitable way, after that period. In the interim period, it is hoped that tempers will cool down and much of the emotional factor, now surcharging the situation, will die out. Further, the interim period can be utilised for the development of these areas towards which the two countries, as well as the UNO will suitably contribute.

The above proposal can be a very good basis for discussion between India and Pakistan and Kashmir.. It is hoped that friendly countries, interested in a settlement, will take up this proposal levels, as well as the international conference.

Needless to say that as earnest effort in this direction will be the greatest service to the cause of peace in the world.

Its Genesis and Evolution

By Prof. M.K. Teng

After the accession of the State to the Indian Dominion in October 1947, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir State was reconstituted to give effect to the transfer of power to the people in accordance with the practice followed by the Government of India in the princely States. The transfer of power in the State was aimed to end the rigours of the princely rule and ensure the exercise of authority in accordance with the democratic process and the acceptance of administrative responsibility. However, the transfer of power in Jammu and Kashmir assumed a different direction. No sooner did the National Conference leaders constitute the first Interim Government, they abandoned their commitments to all secular norms and set out to reorganise the State on the basis of the communal precedence of the Muslim majority. The rapid transformation of the whole economic organisation of the State, which upturned the property relations, the Dogra rulers had established and which the Interim Government accomplished, ostensibly to eliminate exploitation and poverty, led directly to the emergence of a new Muslim middle class, which in the years to come, formed the mainstay of the Muslim separatist movements in the State. The first Interim Government secured the exclusion of the State from the constitutional organisation of India, mainly to secure the social, political and economic interests of the Muslim majority in the State. In their parleys with the Indian leaders, the Conference leaders insisted upon the institution of a separate constitutional framework and sets of political imperatives to safeguard the basic right of the people in the State, independent of the fundamental rights, the Constituent Assembly of India had evolved. More particularly, the Conference leaders vehemently opposed the acceptance of all rights to equality and protection of minorities, which the Constitution of India envisaged, on the ground that such rights conflicted with the economic reforms, the Interim Government had undertaken. The Interim Government secured the abdication of Maharaja Hari Singh and after that, did not taken long to assume total control over the authority on the State. In less than a year, the Hindus were eliminated from the economic organisation of the State, its government and administration. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the Prime Minister in the Interim Government, who virtually became the ruler of the State, headed the Auqaf-Islamia, the Muslim Endowment Trust, but demanded the dissolution of the Dharmarth, the Hindu Endowment Trust, which the Dogra rulers had established. The Interim Government forged a new Muslim ruling elite, which ruled the State in the decades which followed, relegating the Hindus to a conditions of abject servitude.

The Interim Government packed the Constituent Assembly with Muslims. Seventy-three of its seventy-five members were returned unopposed and without contest and the remaining two seats in the Assembly, were also bagged by the National Conference after their opponents were driven out of the contest. In the Assembly, around three fourth of the members were Muslims. The whole delimitation of the constituencies was based upon disproportionate distribution of population, ensuring the Muslim majority province of Kashmir a heavier weightage than the Hindu majority province of Jammu. When Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah denounced the Delhi Agreement in 1953, and demanded the separation of the State from the territorial jurisdiction of the Union of India, the handful of the Hindu members in the Assembly stood against him and supported the second Interim Government headed by Bakshi Gulam Mohammad. Few of the Muslim members of the Constituent Assembly offered their support to the second Interim Government, during those critical days after the dismissal of the Interim Government headed by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah. Later they were bought by Bakshi, for a fairly high price, which was paid at the cost of the Hindus.

Bakshi did not end the Muslim precedence in the government and the society of the State and in spite of the partial application of the fundamental rights, envisaged by the Constitution of India to Jammu and Kashmir, the process of the elimination of the Hindus from the political and economic organsation of the State continued unabated. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad also continued to head the Muslim Endowment Trust, the Auqaf-Islamia. After the Constituent Assembly completed its labours and a separate constitution was promulgated in the State in 1957, Bakshi packed the first Legislative Assembly, on the basis of the constituencies delimited for the elections to the Constituent Assembly. The Muslims of Kashmir were ensured perpetual heavier weightage in the elections to the State Legislature than the people in Jammu and Ladakh. During the last four decades, legislative majorities were predominantly Muslim. The demand of the Hindus of Jammu for a review of the delimitation and the four decades long struggle of the three lakkhs of Hindus and Sikh refugees for the citizenship of the State, was never met.

The scourage of the Muslim precedence spread wider. Not only were legislative bodies and the political instruments dominantly Muslim, the entire administrative organisation was Muslimised rapidly within days after the Interim Government was saddled in office., The rapid process of summary removal of the Hindus from the State services was initiated on the pretext of communal imbalances in the services which the Conference leaders alleged, characterized the administrative organisation of the State. The allegations were baseless. Glaring imbalances characterized the administration of the State, but the imbalances were not communal in character. The State was virtually governed by the British and their officers in the Indian Political Department, who were posted in the state to conduct its administration. The Dogra ruling elite was not Hindu, it was constituted of the small agrarian middle class, which was equally Muslim. The services of the State were dominated by the British and the men of the Indian Civil Service, besides the clansmen of the ruling dynasty and a section of Dogra ruling elite, almost half of which was constituted by the Muslims. The ranks of the State army were divided in a ratio of 55 per cent Hindus and 45 per cent Muslims, mostly drawn from the non-Kashmiri speaking subjects of the Dogra rulers. The Hindus of Kashmir and Jammu, who had taken to English education far ahead of their Muslim compatriots, were employed in subordinate services, on petty posts, and they licked the mud for the Raj as well as the British empire.

The Interim Government, removed the senior Hindu Officers of the State government on charges of having supported the Dogra rule, replacing them by the henchmen of the National Conference and political adventurists. A virtual embargo was imposed on the employment of the Hindus of Kashmir in the state services apparently to rectify the alleged communal imbalances but in reality to Muslimise the various instruments of authority as well as the lines of its control.

The partial application of the Constitution of India in 1954, and the promulgation of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir in January 1957, upheld the precedence of the Muslim majority. The application of the fundamental rights envisaged by the Constitution of India to the State by virtue of the Presidential Order of May 1954, was restricted by numerous exceptions and reservations. This armed the State government with arbitrary powers to effect reservations for classified sections of permanent residents of the state, which the successive State government used ruthlessly to promote Muslim interests.

The following facts reveal the extent of domination and precedence the Muslims, particularly the Muslims of the Kashmir province, enjoyed in the government and politics of the State.

(a) The imbalances in the delimitation of constituencies in the two provinces of Jammu and Kashmir and the exclusion of two and half lakhs of Hindu refugees, living in the State from 1947, was mainly aimed to reduce the weightage of the Hindus in the legislative processes of the State, ensuring a three-fourth majority for the Muslims in the State Legislative Assembly. The representation of the Hindus was maintained at an average 31 per cent of the seats in the Legislative Assembly. The entire Sharnarthi population was deprived of any representation in the local legislative bodies. In the delimitation of the electoral constituencies, gerry maundering was meticulously used to neutralize the decisive Hindu and Sikh weightage in, at least, three constituencies viz Habbakadal, Anantnag and Baramulla in the Kashmir province and three constituencies in the Districts of Doda and Udhampur in the Jammu province. Consequently in Kashmir, the Hindus and the Sikhs did not have even a single non-Muslim majority constituency, where-from a representative of their choice could be elected to the Legislative Assembly of the State. Generally, the Hindus and other non-Muslim representatives, elected to the State Legislative Assembly from Kashmir, were mercenaries and men of small virtue, who never enjoyed the confidence of their community The records of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly reveal how the Hindu representatives supported the legislation aimed to exclude Hindus and other minorities from the organisation of the State government and its political function and impose limitation on their entry to the educational institutions of the State. It will not be out of place to mention here, that when controversy raged over the passage of the Resettlement Bill, which the National Conference Government, headed by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, introduced in the Assembly, to open the flood-gates for the re-entry into the State, of the Muslims from Pakistan and the Occupied Territories, the Hindus representatives did not voice their disapproval of the Bill, which they were repeatedly told would prove disastrous for the State. None of the Hindu legislators, except those from Jammu, who were elected by the opposition, raised the issue of the thousands of Hindus refugees uprooted from the territories of the Kashmir province occupied by the Pakistan.

(b) Right from 1947, the Muslims adorned the office of the highest political executive of the State. The four Prime Minister of the State, who headed the political executive till 1965, were Muslims and the six Chief Ministers of the Congress, the National Conference Governments, who followed, were also Muslims. In the Councils of Ministers, during the last four and half decades, the Hindus, Buddhists and the other minorities held an average of 26 per cent of the ministerial offices, the rest being held by the Muslims.

(c) In the various decision-making clusters of the various political party organisations, including the National Conference and the Congress, which ruled the State during the last four decades, Hindus of Kashmir were always left unrepresented.

(d) The maximal parliamentary patronage was appropriated by the Muslims of Kashmir and the Muslims in the Jammu province to the disadvantages of the Hindus;

(e) In the decision-making units of the State administration, the representation of the Hindus of Kashmir was always negligible. The decisional units of the State government were always dominated by the Muslims of Kashmir province, excluding the Hindus completely. Almost all the Heads of the Departments in the State administration, were Muslims. An unwritten instrument of instruction operated to eliminate the Hindus from the various decision-making bodies and governed the appointment of the heads of the administrative divisions and staff agencies. An average of less than 26 per cent, including the lent officers of the Government of India, and the officers of the Indian Administrative Services, were Hindus. An average of 68 per cent higher posts in the State government were always monopolized by the Muslims. The major public enterprises, state corporations, educational institutions of higher learning and colleges, imparting technical education in the Kashmir province, were invariably headed by the Muslims.

(f) In the administrative organisation of the State, the Hindus of Kashmir with 88 per cent literacy shared an average of 4.8 per cent of the State services, including the services in the public enterprises, corporations and government undertakings.

(g) In the services of the Central government, including the Jammu and Kashmir Bank, the services of corporate undertakings of the Central government, the defence services, the Beacon organisation and the communication system of the Central government, the Kashmiri Hindus shared only 12 per cent of the available employments, whereas the Kashmiri Muslims shared 38 per cent of the available employments.

During the period 1980 to 1990, when the Muslim fundamentalist movements assumed ascendance and the secessionist forces tightened their hold on the administrative organisation of the State, the recruitment of Kashmir Hindus to the State services and services in other corporate bodies, was reduced to an average of 1.7 per cent. Several communal government orders were struck down by the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of the State. But ways and means were devised by the State government to circumvent the judicial decisions to enforce the exclusion means of the Kashmiri Hindus from employments which otherwise were their due. The embargo on the recruitment of the Kashmiri Hindus, was extended to their employment in the teaching staff of the higher secondary schools, colleges and post-graduate departments of the University of Kashmir as well as the Agricultural University, the Medical College, the Engineering College and the Institute of Medical Sciences in spite of the fact that the Hindus possessed not only adequate but higher qualifications and professional excellence.

The elimination of the Hindus in Kashmir from all political processes and functions, was extended to the admission of the Hindus to educational institutions in the State, and grant of scholarships and nomination for training and higher studies outside the State. It is a little known fact that during the last forty-seven years the admissions of Kashmiri Hindus to various academic institutions, institutions of higher learning, Universities, technical colleges, including the Regional Engineering College, the Institute of Medical Sciences, Government Medical College and the University of Kashmir, were restricted to an average 8 per cent of the total admissions made every year. Incidentally, the Kashmiri Hindus constituted more than 8 per cent of the population of the Kashmir province. A bare 2 per cent of Kashmiri Hindus were awarded nominations and State grants for higher studies and trainings outside the State.

Communal government orders were issued from time to time, implementing classification undertaken by the State Legislature to define, socially and educationally backward classes to ensure the Muslims a wider reservation for admissions to the educational institutions. Many of these communal government orders were struck down by the High Court of the State and the Supreme Court of India. Undeterred by severe censure by the highest courts of the land, the State government refused to change its policy and the scourage of reservations continued to ravage the Hindus. A computation of the data regarding admission of Hindus to the technical colleges, training courses and post-graduate classes in Kashmir, during the last forty-seven years, shows that they were subject to gross discrimination in spite of the meritorious grades secured in their qualifying Board and University examinations. On an average basis, only 7 per cent of Hindus were admitted to the technical colleges, though 63 per cent of the Hindu applicants possessed a first class with 60 per cent or more marks, whereas 76 per cent of the Muslim candidates were aditted to the technical colleges, though only 31 per cent of Muslim applicants possessed first class with 60 per cent or more marks in their respective qualifying examinations. In the admissions to the technical training colleges, 12 per cent of the Hindu candidates were admitted though 66 per cent of the Hindu applicants possessed a first class with 60 per cent or more marks in the qualifying examination, whereas 82 per cent of the Muslims, were admitted to the technical training colleges, though only 28 per cent of the Muslim applicants possessed first class with 60 per cent or more marks. In the admissions to the post-graduate courses, only 14 per cent of the Hindu candidates were admitted though 41 per cent of the applicants possessed first class with 60 per cent or more marks, whereas 78 per cent of Muslim candidates were admitted to the post-graduate classes, though only 14 per cent of the Muslim applicants possessed first class with 60 per cent or more marks.

Apart from the wide range of the state patronage, the Muslims enjoyed, and the extensive hold they exercised over the instruments of the authority of the State government, their interest articulation was phenomenally high. With the financial support and patronage provided by the Muslim middle class and the State government, besides the funds received from abroad, a wide-spread network of media-means was established over the years for the interest articulation of the Muslims in the State and their political expressions. The Muslims in Kashmir owned more than 72 daily newspapers, news journals, weekly news-magazines and other periodicals. In contrast the Hindus owned, 4 newspapers, news-magazines, journals, one of which was in English and which were hardly published with the regularity and effect the newspapers owned by the Muslims were published. Evidently, the impoverished Hindu community could not sustain their publication. The state patronage was monopolized by the newspapers owned by the Muslims and the Hindus enjoyed no financial backing from any sources inside or outside the State.

The vernacular newspaper, owned by the Muslims, were mainly committed to religious propagation, promotion of Muslim separatism and communalism, the justification of the autonomy of the State and the exclusion of the State from the Indian political organisation. Most of the vernacular newspapers continued a sustained attack on the secular social organisations of India, demanding freedom for the Muslims of the State to opt for “Nizam-e-Mustafa” or the Islamic political order and their liberation from the clutches of India. Many of the newspapers preached Muslim communalism openly, a policy which earned them greater approbation of the bosses of the political parties, including the parties which were ostensibly committed to secularism, the Muslim middle class and the third generation English-educated youth, brought up under the influence of the secessionist movements. More popular of the dailies published invectives against the Hindu minority, particularly, the Kashmiri Pandits. A large-scale and sustained attack, was maintained, in many of the vernacular dailies and news-magazines against the culture, the history, the social mores and tradition of the Hindus of Kashmir. The ancient history of Kashmir was denigrated as a past, which the Muslims of Kashmir refused to own.

No restraints were ever imposed on the publication of these newspapers; even secularism were not invoked against them. Many of them preached secession of the State from India openly and with candid frankness. But their freedom to preach treason was never questioned.

*The writer is a renowned Political Scientist and author of many books on Kashmir.

By Dr. Ajay Chrungoo

The mindset behind the critique on reorganisation (trifurcation or quadri-partition) needs to be understood. Our formal interaction with the Regional Autonomy Committee, before its chairman was unceremoniously removed is revealing in this context. The only definitive question which we were asked repeatedly and which became the theme of the debate was. “If Panun Kashmir demand of carving out a Union Territory, North and East of river Jhelum for rehabilitation of Kashmiri Pandits is conceded where will the Muslims who live in this area go?”

We clarified that the Panun Kashmir demand in fact wanted a dispensation within Kashmir valley where the ‘Constitution of India’ applies in letter and spirit without any reservations and fetters. Where does the question of Muslims having to leave the area arise in this proposition? “But Muslims will not live in such a dispensation,” we are again asked. We counterpoised the proposition. In 1947 India chose to remain secular while Pakistan became a chosen place for Muslims. There were Muslims who remained in India and there were Muslims who chose to move to Pakistan. The Regional Autonomy Committee chose to interpret the argument as our support for the transfer of population. The real question as to why living under the free flow of Indian Constitution is visualized as not compatible with the aspirations of Kashmiri Muslims is never asked by anybody who defends the special status of the state and opposes re-organisation.

Perhaps for the fear that answer may invariably lead to the conclusion that so-called unfulfilled aspirations are ‘essentially’ communal in content and divorced from the ‘secular nation building vision’ of India. The inevitable consequences of such a conclusion is that the solution of Kashmir lies in the policy which envisages the secularisation of social milieu of Muslims and not fortification of Muslim identity.

“Liberal-left’ avoids any discourse which will confront them with the reality that the crises in Kashmir has its roots in the flawed secular vision applied to the state besides the geo-politics in the region. This vision treats the support to accession with India as the only yardstick on which secular behaviour of the polity should be judged. It treats those forms of Muslim communal politics which avoid questioning the accession of state with India as essentially secular. It builds compulsions for the nation state to patronise such varieties of Muslim communalism.

The actual fall out is the building of a symbiotic relationship between Muslim identity politics which does not question accession and operates with the patronage of the state and the Muslim identity politics which is frankly secessionist in its expression and operates with the help of international vested interest. This symbiotic relationship has formed the substratum for subversive process in the state.

‘Left Liberal’ mind is not oblivious of such a fallout but continues to support the paradigm for furthering its own ideological agenda. It views India as a collection of nationalities yet to be reconciled. It seeks to redefine the principles of Indian Federalism for this reconciliation. And it visualises the Muslim sub-nationalism with its support structures and damaging potential as the most potent instrumentality which can force the change upon India.

The opposition to the principle of re-organisation of Jammu and Kashmir state emanates not from the concern for secularism but because the re-organisation of Jammu and Kashmir would decisively weaken Muslim identity politics and render separatism full of stakes for the future. It will also reverse the genocidal processes unleashed on the Hindu-Sikh minorities in the state. Arguments that re-organisation of the state is ‘cutting the pie with communal knife are basically endeavours to keep the pie brimming with communal poison.

The process of fortification of Muslim communalism did not end with granting the state of Jammu and Kashmir with a ‘special status’. It heralded the beginning of the campaign for a ‘Greater Muslim Kashmir’. Participatory democracy was decisively destroyed in Kashmir valley. All such legislative constituencies, which had potential of throwing up of a mandate against the dominant politics, were broken and reshaped. Carving out of districts and legislative constituencies on communal consideration in Jammu was the beginning of the assault on the secular identity of Jammu. Creating Kargil as a separate district in Ladakh spread the ambit of communal assault to the entire state. That lesser voters are required to determine the assembly or parliamentary constituencies in Muslim majority Kashmir valley than in other two provinces only underlined communal aggression subjecting the people of entire state to the hegemony of Muslim communalism.

Retrieving the situation in Jammu and Kashmir requires confronting Muslim communalism in all its forms.

It requires decisive steps to protect secular identities in the existing state from the militarized communal aggression. It also requires a decisive bluff to all machinations which have provided a cover to the communal processes in the state. Re-organisation of the state through  quadri-partition will ensure all these imperatives.

Excerpts from the trifurcation resolution announced in Kurukshetra

The Akhil Bhartiya Karyakari Mandal (ABKM) expresses its grave concern over the fast deteriorating situation in recent years in the J&K state due to the separatists and terrorist activities. This situation has been aggravated by the slogan of autonomy for the state...

About two lakh Hindu adults are voters for the Parliamentary elections but not for the State Assembly; the duration of the State Assembly is six years and not five as in other States, a discriminating  law that makes a woman marrying a man outside the State of J&K, in other parts of the country, lose her right in her father’s property and status of a state subject whereas a woman marrying a man hailing from Pakistan getting the right to make her husband its citizen, and harassment of Hindu citizens by asking them proof of their citizenship of the State while conferring it on the known foreign terrorists and settling them in and around Jammu speak volumes of sinister motives of the present National Conference Government under Dr Farooq Abdullah. However, the ABKM notes that there is a ray of hope...There are saner people in the state who do not want the cover of Article 370, who are against any sort of autonomy and who want full integration with Bharat.

The ABKM, therefore, resolves as under:

i) The people of Jammu think that the solution of their problems lies in the separate statehood for Jammu region. This has been demonstrated by the agitation spearheaded by the Jammu-Kashmir National Front and other organisations. To brand this demand for a separate statehood for Jammu region, which includes the Muslim majority districts of Poonch, Rajouri and Doda as communal, is either crass ignorance or motivated prejudice.

ii) The ABKM supports the demand for UT status for Ladakh region.

iii) ABKM offers all its support to the forces in the Kashmir valley that are for full integration with Bharat.

iv) The ABKM feels deeply concerned about the fate of Kashmiri Hindus who have been hounded out of their homes by the Jehadi Muslim elements. The ABKM calls upon the governments, both Central and State, to have a dialogue with these unfortunate people and find a way for their safe and secure rehabilitation in the Kashmir valley.

v) It is also very important that every precaution be taken to ensure free and fair elections in J&K. In view of the past experience the present NC government cannot generate confidence that it will help conduct free and fair elections.

By Joginder Singh

Kashmir has been the cause of wars with Pakistan in 1948, 1965, 1971 and 1998. The present Line of Control (LoC) between India and Pakistan was negotiated by India, after it defeated Pakistan in 1971. Bangladesh was the direct result of this victory, which was a war of liberation, essentially fought by the Bangladeshis. The LoC is the core of Shimla Agreement, signed between the then Indian Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, and the Pakistani Prime Minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, on July 2, 1972.

Broadly speaking the agreement enjoins both sides to respect the LoC. This is without prejudice to their respective positions on the status of Jammu and Kashmir. This agreement converted the LoC into an international border though this was not specified in words with a view perhaps to pander to sensibilities of the people back home - more in Pakistan than in India. It was reported that - according to some members of the then Indian delegation, among them, Principal Secretary to the PM, PN Dhar - Bhutto wanted this part of the understanding kept out of the formal agreement. He feared it would meet with a huge opposition in Pakistan. He wanted some more time to sell the idea to his people.

The proposal was never formally accepted. Our Parliament has passed a resolution claiming the entire territory of J&K, including the so-called Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). The question of making the LoC the international border comes up in various quarters from time to time. After India and Pakistan went nuclear, J&K Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah publicly supported it. This was swiftly repudiated by the External Affairs Minister, who reiterated the Indian claim to PoK. The LoC as an international border is not a workable solution by itself for Pakistan: It leaves a large - and the most coveted - part of J&K with India.

It seems J&K will remain a headache for a long time to come. Management experts say that the best way to solve a problem is to divide it into parts and tackle one part at a time. Dividing a problem into parts and conquering each part separately are not only less time-consuming, but also cost effective.

Figures tell a grim story about J&K. Between 1990 and February 2000, 20,365 A-K rifles, 8,825 pistols, 958 UMGs, 757 RPGs, 308 sniper rifles, 615 rocket launchers, 1,687 rocket boosters, 75 LMGs and 25,000 kg of RDX have been recovered. In the same period, the death toll has been 7,284 civilians, 9,864 terrorists and 2,579 security personnel. Political parties too have not been spared; 205 members of the National Conference have been killed; the Congress has lost 49 people; the BJP nine; the CPI (M) five; the Janata Dal 10; and the Awami League five.

Violence has affected the Valley the most. The government in Srinagar is hardly able to pay attention to the other parts of the state. Over 70 per cent of the resources allocated by the Centre are supposedly spent in the Valley. The result: A demand to make Ladakh and Jammu separate states/units. The supporters of this proposal feel the Valley itself can be constituted into a separate state. The proposal has found unexpected but welcome support from the RSS. The latter has backed the demand to convert Ladakh in to a Union Territory, as desired by the Ladakhis. The people of Jammu think and feel that the solution to their problems - better administration and development - lies in separate statehood.

Trifurcation - Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh - is also justified on the grounds that the three regions have separate cultural and religious identities. Jammu is largely Hindu, the Valley entirely Muslim after the ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs by terrorists, and most of Ladakh Buddhist. The demand has near-total acceptance in Jammu and Ladakh. Local people argue that they are politically and administratively discriminated against, in favour of the Valley. While Jammu can be made into a separate state, Ladakh is keen on Union Territory status. There have been huge demonstrations in both regions from time to time, pressing for their respective demands and claims.

The rationale behind dividing J&K is valid on other grounds. Jammu and Ladakh are rich in resources and with much potential for tourism as the Valley. But it is the latter that is singled out for development. Jammu has a larger population than the Valley does. But it has been given fewer seats in the J&K Assembly.

The greatest threat to India are double-speaking politicians ruling roost in the Valley, who speak one language in New Delhi and another in Srinagar. One disruptive feature is the autonomy report - or is it a ‘separation from India’ report? - of 1999-2000 which the Farooq Abdullah government passed in the State Assembly. The report and the Assembly resolution aimed at pre-1953 status for J&K. Put simply, it meant granting autonomy to the State in all spheres except defence, foreign affairs and currency. But the responsibility for funding it was left to the Centre!

The justification was that the recommendations were in accordance with the original instrument of accession signed by Raja Hari Singh. The Farooq Abdullah dispensation has complained off and on that, over the years, the Centre has eroded the State’s autonomy and imposed its own writ on Kashmiris. Its rhetoric is nothing if not secessionist. Fortunately, the Centre rejected the Assembly resolution. It clarified that the demand was secessionist and that reverting to pre-1953 status would mean ending the jurisdiction of the Reserve Bank, the Election Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Supreme Court, as well as deleting Articles 356 and 357 of the Constitution. The double game of leaders claiming to be nationalists for the sake of power not only in J&K, but also in Delhi, needs to be exposed. The Chief Minister who wanted India to go to war with Pakistan shed tears when he could not be accommodated as President or Vice-President. His son, a Union Minister, called it a great betrayal.

Some people fear trifurcation may lead to the State’s communal division. Attention is drawn to the J&K’s secular character, essential for preservation of India’s composite culture. Critics of trifurcation say it will justify the two-nation theory that formed the basis for the birth of Pakistan. This criticism is both ill-conceived and ill-founded. If in one state Muslims become the majority, that does not mean India has ceased to be secular. There are a number of States in Northeast where Christians, are the majority. Punjab is a Sikh majority State. This has not compromised Indian secularism. Formation of a separate State in the Valley does not mean its secession, nor a violation of our multi-religious ethos. The truth is that doomsday pundits treat any new idea as anathema. They are afraid to concede that they may be wrong. Ethnically, all three parts of J&K are separate and distinct identities. Article 370 can be extended to all the three regions, while having better administrative units at the same time.

There is nothing wrong in recognising realities and redressing the grievances of two-thirds of J&K. The State Administration will find it easier to deal with divisive and disruptive elements in a focused manner. As also to isolate terrorists in the Valley and eliminate them at their entry point  it will make tackling their harbourers in the Valley less difficult. The idea has a lot of merit and should not be dismissed just because RSS has floated it. It should be pursued to its logical end, given that it seems the only way to satisfy popular aspirations.

*The author has remained Director of CBI.

The unique combination of one Bachlor President alongwith another Bachlor Prime Minister both of whom currently stand at the helm of affairs in India cannot but only augur huge inconveniencies for this country if one goes alongby any of the religious and other spiritual standards set forth in this regard.

Both the occupants of these two biggest chairs-one heading the state and other the executives in this country, do fall short of that lively life, where the basic realms of a family are practically absent from their private and personnel itineries. The normal and natural course of even some smaller tits and bits which revolve around any fullest form of life are thus unfortunately out of their comprehensions. While the physical feelings about a wife, a family and its offshoots makes a person nostalgic at times, the same nostalgia can not possibly reverberate anywhere around these two most important men of our country. While the common norms say that a Raja must be having all the normal prepositions of his or her subjects (Praja), the same becomes more important when put through the religious and other ritual angles-that too in a country where sacrosance of a family has always been kept at a very high social pedestal. Vedantic scholars then must be having a tough time in performing the spiritual ceremonies and chanting of prescribed religious ryhms which may to some extent absolve and dilute any ill effects of the coming together of the present top combination where not just one but both the slots of presidency and premiership in this country has been occupied by those two men who had long before gaining the present status, taken to a protracted celebacies. The celebracy for someone among the general masses could been taken as a subject of one’s own compulsions or conveniences but the celebrated celebacies about those people ruling the country of more than 1 billion people (who do come from millions of families) may perhaps sound against the nature’s simple and just choice.

Isn’t it ironical that the normal schemes of generational continuities stop in our country when any numerical accounting procedures for the one billion souls reach the residential addresses of our present singular Prime Minister as well as the newly elected singular president. This is surely a Pardox and God forbid it does not even sound very auspicious for the nation itself. Perhaps the first ever visit outside the Rashtrapati Bhavan for the new President was to bereave the family members of late Mr Krishan Kant.

This is true that the presentation of such blind theories may sound narrow mindedness in today’s modern and scientific life but that modernity and that scientific revolution has also not supeseeded the nature’s system of plurality till date. Infact what nature has presented and dauntingly established is a system in continuity and not a full stop type of human structures. The present top most human structure in our country therefore goes against the nature’s system also. His system of procuring and productivity is seemingly absent from the lives of Raja and Maharaja of this spiritual land. God only shall save this country if tomorrow the Praja decides to follow the deeds of their Rajas in letter and spirit.

By Special Correspondent

In a polity, where promotion of religion-based identity is the chief aspiration for the ruling class, communal governance is a natural corollary. Its impact is disturbing more so in an area where the locals have to combat historical deprivations with geographical backwardness.

Ladakh, the northern frontier of India is a strategically crucial region for India. A Central government should have normally been more alert to see that Ladakhis not only receive their due but also have a feeling that the nation values their patriotism. This is not how myopic and self-serving political leadership of the country looks at nation-building. Spread of terrorism to Jammu and Ladakh could have been pre-empted had central leadership acted to consolidate the nationalist groups in Jammu and Ladakh.

Ladakh constitutes 69.6% of the total land area of J&K State (1,38,942 sq. km.) Politically it is the most marginalised region. A number of strategies have been used by the Kashmir-based political leadership to marginalise Ladakhis. Kashmir leadership blatantly discriminates between Buddhist Ladakh and Shiite Kargil. Rise of communalism in Ladakh in the last two decades is the fallout of this.

Numerous instruments used to perpetuate discrimination against Ladakhis can be enumerated as:

A. Political Manipulation:

Inflating the voters lists in Kargil:

It is aimed to deprive Ladakhis of electing a representative of their choice. In the 1981 census population of Leh district was 68,380, while that of Kargil was 65,992. But the number of voters has been higher in Kargil.

No. of Voters            1985            1987            1989

Leh District            39,485            43,455            46,432

Kargil District            48,503            51,646            52,934

This is the most vulnerable evidence of political manipulation. Ladakhis allege that the authorities indulge in malpractices in the preparation of electoral list in Kargil district. They have demanded a sample survey by the Central Election Commission to expose this manipulation.

Delimitation of Zanskar Constituency:

Another glaring and serious instance of political manipulation to harm the interests of the Buddhist community was the delimitation of the Zanskar Assembly Constituency. Zanskar, a desolate sub-division of Kargil is demographically and culturally a Buddhist area. For eight months in the year it remains cut off from the world. Its peculiar problems of development could be taken care of by a representative of Zanskar only.

To deprive Zanskari Buddhists of their representation, three Patwar circles of Kargil Sub-Division, viz., Panikher (170 kms away from Padam), Lankarchi and Barsoo (both 200 kms. away from Padum) were included in the Zanskar constituency. These are thickly populated by Muslims. Thus, the objective of this step was clearly to prevent a Buddhist from getting elected to the state assembly. It has been a persistent Zanskari demand to exclude these three Patwar circles from this constituency.

B. Discrimination in Services:

Indian Administrative Services:

So far only four Ladakhi officers have been inducted into the IAS cadre by the State government. Intriguingly all of them have been Muslims and not a single Buddhist.

KAS/KPS:

After a gap of 15 years, examination for recruitment to KAS/KPS was conducted during 1997-98 by the State Public Service Commission. Extreme discrimination against Buddhists by the State government is obvious from the following figures relating to Ladakh region:

50 State Employees have been inducted into KAS under technical quota and not a single Buddhist included in the share on 30.8.2000.

Community            No. of qualifying            No. of selected

                         the written exam.  for KAS/KPS

Buddhists                   23                                       1

Muslims                     3                                        3

Christians                   1                                        1

State Secretariat:

The State Secretariat cadre has a strength of about 3,500 employees. Not a single Buddhist employee even in class IV position has been recruited during the past 52 years.

Assembly Secretariat:

Not a single Buddhist employee recruited since 1947.

Recruitment:

Number of State Government Employees before 1996 when Dr Abdullah took over was 2.54 lakhs. The number rose to 3.58 lakhs in 2000 (26-1-2000) out of 1.04 lakh employees recruited during this brief period, only 319 employees (0.31%) were from Ladakh. Its share should have been at least 2% and even more if legitimate weightage were given to this extremely backward area.

Public Sector:

There are 21,286 employees in the State Public Sector. Except for 2 or 3 Buddhists in J&K SRTC, the remaining  8 PSUs have not employed a single Buddhist.

Recruitment in Police:

3 Battalions of J&K Police were created in September 2000. There was no share to Buddhist community. In the backdoor entry recruitment to Excise and Taxation Department from Leh and Kargil all the four posts-Inspector  2 (August 99) and Sub-Inspector 2 (March  99) went to Muslims. The appointment of Assistants in State Cadre Accounts service in August 2000, statistics are revealing:

District             Muslim            Buddhist            Christian        Total

Kargil                    3                            --                             --                          3

Leh                       2                            1                             2                          5

Total                     5                            1                             2                          8

C: Discrimination in Education

Engineering Course:

During 1997-98 and 1998-99 selection each year was 8 out which 7 seats went to Muslims and only 1 to Buddhists.

MBBS Course:

During the same years the number of seats reserved for Ladakh was 8 out of which 6 went to Muslims and only 2 to Buddhists.

Polytechnic Institutions:

In April 2000 the total number of students admitted from Ladakh was 25 out of which 23 were Muslims.

Neglect of facilities in Schools:

An instance of utter neglect of facilities and administration in Govt. Schools in Leh district is that noumber of students appearing in the examination has dropped from 1683 (1997) to 709 (1999) and pass percentage even dropped to 4.90 (1998). In 1999 it was 7.33. During the Governors’ rule the position in schools was somewhat better. In 1994 the pass percentage even rose to 17.97%. At no point of time the number of students appearing in Class-X examination was less than 1150.

Many middle class Ladakhi families are now forced to send their children to schools outside Ladakh for better schooling.

D. Misuse of Liberal Assistance:

Though the per capita central assistance for J&K has been nearly ten times (Rs 3,010) what other states get, yet Ladakh has remained a victim of neglect and discrimination by the State government. Leh district is thrice bigger in area than Kargil district, yet the two districts get equal funds for the District Plan: Rs 42-crores each during 2000-2001

The Wazir Commission constituted to make recommendations to the State government for delimitation of new Blocks in the 14 districts of the State recommended two new Blocks each for Leh and Kargil districts. Whereas the State government promptly created two new Blocks in Kargil District, the recommendation of the Wazir Commission has not been implemented in Leh District so far. Consequently, Leh District is deprived of legitimate Central Assistance to the tune of Rs 2 crores per year. Leh District has at present only 5 Blocks while Kargil District has 7 Blocks.

The State Plan’s major share (65%) goes to the State Sector and the rest is allocated to the districts. All major roads and bridges in the other districts are funded from the State Sector, but not a single road or bridge has been funded from the state sector in Leh District.

Conversions of Buddhists and other grievances:

Ladakhis allege that conversions of Buddhists is being practised as a policy to change the social demography of this frontier region. With the intervention of Ministry of Home Affairs an agreement was reached in 1992 between Ladakh Buddhist Association and the Ladakh Muslim Association. This agreement stipulated that all the recently converted persons would be restored to their old faith by the respective organisation. This agreement has been consistently violated. During the period 1992-98, 28 Buddhist girls of Leh District were converted to Islam and majority of them were allured to Kargil. Twelve villages/hamlets populated by Buddhist majority comprising 651 families (population about 5000) and located at 40 to 60 kms from Kargil town are the worst hit Buddhist population where so far 72 boys and girls have been converted to Islam as per survey conducted by LBA.

There are other religious grievances also. A Gompa comprising three rooms in Kargil town constructed 40 years back is lying in shambles as Muslims of Kargil never allow LBA to repair. Cremation of a dead Buddhist is not allowed at Kargil and the dead body has to be moved to a Buddhist area. There is not a single room by way of a Sarai for Buddhists at Kargil town despite a demand for the same for the last 35 years. Six new mosques have been constructed at Leh town during 1989-99 around Buddhist habitations and more than 540 Muslim families settled at Leh, majority of whom were brought from Kargil.

Buddhists in Kargil, who constitute 20% of population in the district face grim prospect. A few glaring examples of discrimination are:

1997 - 24 Patwaris appointed, with only one Buddhist and the rest all are Muslims.

1998 - 40 Class-IV employees were appointed in Education department with only one Buddhist on his conversion to Islam, while all the rest were Muslims.

(The facts and figures are based on surveys conducted by LBA and published from time to time.)              --Editor

Political Reorganisation of J&K State

By K.N. Pandita

Indian Constitution recognises region alone as the sub-national identity for sharing of political power. This concept has provided unbridled leverage to regional majority social groups in projecting themselves as the chief articulating agency for the as pirations of the people in that particular region. As such exclusivist precedence of this group acquires formal validity. Consequently, the interests and aspirations of regional minorities receive a raw deal. The situation becomes ludicrous when regional minority groups put together gain numerical superiority over the regional majority group.

The acceptance of region as the only sub-national identity generates and then subserves the politics of subnationalism. It tends to build exclusivist regional identity based on ethnicity, caste or religion only for narrow group interests. Thus social fragmentation not only retards the process of social and national cohesion but also imperils the positions of regional minority groups. The peculiar social behaviour of Jat Sikhs in Punjab, Jat Hindus in Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh, Yadavs in Bihar and Eastern UP, Nepalese in Sikkim and the Sunni Muslims in Kashmir Valley are some of the instances of regional majority dominance giving rise to the question of unrepresented minonorites in the region.

In a multi-cultural society like ours, the absence of an intense debate on federalism, instantly linking autonomy with subnationalism, the case of regional minorities, particularly the non-territorial groups, is being relegated to the backyard. It is the regional majority groups which weigh heavily with the Indian State. Indian social scientists and intellectuals must perforce find out why the deepening of the process of federalism has not led to the corresponding strengthening of participatory democracy at the regional level. Regional minority groups have a valid reason to voice their strong opposition to the politics of autonomy and instead demand a strong central authority capable of maintaining the cohesion of the nation-state. They fell this politics does not only end up in blackmailing the centre in garnering more concessions for the elite of the regional majority but is also, and primarily, used to subject the regional minorities (ethnic, religious or linguistic etc.) to the blatant violation of political rights and social safeguards of regional minorities.

National political consensus, guided mainly by the distorted federal vision, has been vehemently protecting the interests of regional majority groups at the cost of further marginalisation of regional minorities. Autonomy to Ladakh, Kashmir and Jammu regions in J&K State is justifiable but the legitimate aspirations of minority groups within the regions e.g. Kashmiri Pandits, Shias, Gujjars Muslims, Zanskaris and others are being underplayed, even subtly scuttled. Legitimate minority interests are made hostage to the parochial politics of regional majority groups under the misinterpreted principles of populist federalism.

Strong ethno-political movements forged by various regional minority groups in the regions of Ladakh, Kashmir and Jammu, seeking political re-organisation of the state by linking federal autonomy to the interests of regional minorities need to be understood in this context. The segementary character of the society and narrow social basis of major political parties of the state have forced the affected regional minorities to seek durable safeguards as part of this envisaged re-organisation.

Profile of J&K Minority Groups

In Jammu division, Gujjar Muslims, Kashmiri speaking Muslims and Jats constitute the major regional minorities. While Gujjars are thinly spread all over the Jammu division, Kashmiri speaking Muslims have major concentration in the district of Doda which was carved out of Jammu division after accession and primarily because of its Muslim predominance. Jats, with a population of about 2.5 lakh, are mostly refugees uprooted in 1947 and 1971 from parts of the erstwhile J&K State.

In Leh district, Buddhists with 88 percent of the district population form the overwhelming majority, while the Shiite Muslims and Argon Muslims form the regional minority groups. Argons are reported to be originally Kashmiri settlers, who settled in Ladakh some decades back. In the Kargil district, the main regional minority groups are Zanskari Buddhists, pagan Brokpas and Darad Sunni Muslims. Shiite Muslims comprise nearly 75 percent of Kargil population.

It is in Kashmir province that the problems of regional minorities have been acute Sunni Muslims of Kashmiri origin account for only 46 percent and the rest fall in the category of minority groups like Shias, Gujjars, Pandits, Paharis, non-ethnic Sunnis like Bhotrajas, Pathans, Tibetans, Darads and others.

Deprivations

Gujjars: The 1.6 million strong liberal minded Gujjar community is the third largest solid ethnic group in the state. It has several grievances against the Kashmir political leadership. For more than four decades, Kashmiris held nearly all the higher appointments in the police, revenue and judicial departments and in the political and administrative spheres in general. A recent survey shows that out of a total of 325 deputy inspector generals of police, superintendents and deputy superintendents, there are only five Gujjars. There is not a single Gujjar among the 14 deputy commissioners and several assistant commissioners in the state cadres. Gujjars have no representation in the State Public Selection Service Commission, and the State Subordinate Selection and Recruitment Board which are the official agencies to fill all the gazetted and non-gazetted positions in state service. Even the Centre has been indifferent to their aspirations. No Gujjar from J&K has ever been made a member of the Union Cabinet nor anyone has one been inducted into diplomatic services.

It is to be noted that the Gujjar representation in the state assembly, too, has been grossly incompatible with their numerical strength. The Gujjars of Jammu region, however, were slightly more fortunate than their Kashmiri chapter in regard to assembly seats.

Kashmiri Speaking Muslims

For obvious reasons, this group could control political power in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as it lay claims to its historical role for a struggle against the rule of the Maharajas. In the process it has become the ruling minority group with over-representation in state services. In Doda district, it has been returning no fewer than five legislators out of six assembly constitutneices despite the fact that its population in the district is not more than 30 per cent. The group has been regularly represented in state and union cabinet. Even some diplomatic appointments have also been held by the members from this very group. Recently two new assembly constituencies were created with barely 35,000 voters in Gool Gulabgarh and Bani areas in district Udhampur of Jammu region. The normal criteria for a delimitation of a constituency in Jammu region is 93,000 whereas in Kashmir region it is far less.

Jat Refugees: By virtue of their being the “outsiders’ in Jammu context, this group of 2,5 lakh people constitutes a regional minority. It comprises thousands of displaced persons from PoK and West Pakistan as a result of tribal attack on the State in 1947. This chunk of refugees from the original territories of the J&K State have suffered much owing to the callous and communally motivated policies of successive state governments. Even after half a century since the day of their displacement, these patriotic citizens have not been given full citizenship rights in the state. This debars them from participating in state elections and from enjoying proprietary rights on the land allotted to them. This is glaring example of depriving a people of their fundamental right to a place where they live and the territory on which they have made their habitation. It is quite natural that they should be demanding the rights that ensure their future prosperity as the citizens of India and state subjects of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is amusing that while the framers of the State Constitution thought it proper to reserve 15 seats in the State Assembly for the people of PoK (considering PoK as legally belonging to the original State of Jammu and Kashmir with its summer capital in Srinagar and winter capital in Jammu) they did not find it necessary or obligatory to ensure the political rights of the people who belonged to the state but were forced out of their homes and to seek shelter in Jammu region.

Argon Muslims: The manipulation of this minority by the Valley leadership has acted as a catalyst for destablisation of peace and amity in Ladakh. Favours bestowed selectively on Argons is evident from the fact that Buddhists, forming 88 per cent of the district population have only 52 percent representation in the services in different state departments of the district. Many Argon officers have been patronised by the Valley leadership to acquire higher ranks in the state echelons.

Kargil Buddhists: The Buddhists of this region have not only marginal representation in state services but they are also discriminated socially and politically. Though forming 20 percent of the population in the district, they are denied even a Gompa or a cremation site even the district headquarters. Balti areas have been added to the new ethnic assembly constituency through very dubious machinations. The ulterior motive is to deprive ethnic Zanskaris from electing their popular candidate.

Darad Sunnis: Though an unprivileged minority, Valley political leadership has been quick to realise the strategic importance of Darad group of Sunni Muslims A special electoral constituency of state legislature for only 6,000 voters has been delimited for Gurez tehsil in Bandipore. This has been done to provide them political space.

Shias: One million strong Kashmiri Shia community inhabiting the Valley, have a strong diaspora in the Mandi block of Poonch district across the Pir Panchal. They have only marginal representation in higher and middle ranks of state services, and no representation in State Public Services Commission or other similar bodies. The 1994 selection list for admission to MBBS did not show single Shia candidate from the Valley. In the state secretariat, the strength of Shia employees is not more than a hundred, out of a total of 3000 employees. Population-wise, they should have been occupying more than 700 positions. According to available data, there are barely 67 Shia engineers in the entire technical staff of the state engineering departments. No Kashmiri Shia has ever been elected as Lok Sabha member or given a berth in the Union cabinet despite committed pro-Congress stance of its popular leadership since mid-sixties. Hardly any Shia has been appointed as ambassador or governor. After 1975, no Kashmiri Shia has even been nominated for Rajya Sabha. It need to be reminded that leader of Kashmiri Shias, Mian Iftikhar Hussain Ansari had submitted a memorandum to the then Prime Minister India in 1983 listing in minute detail all the deprivations Kashmiri Shias were subjected to.

Kashmiri Pandits: The case of internally displaced Kashmiri Pandits is altogether of a different category. They are the major sufferers of externally abetted Islamist insurgency raging in the Valley since 1989. Their complete destabilisation has made them a community sans territory sans home. The undoing of economic or administrative discrimination, with roots going down to the days of accession of the state, is no more a priority with them. It is the question of secured rehabilitation in the Valley on which their entire attention is riveted. The gimmicks like "constituencies in exile' or 'return with honour and dignity' etc. no more humour the victimised community of Pandits.

Though the Union Government showed utmost urgency in getting Presidential ordinance issued to enable the internally displaced Pandits to cast their vote through postal ballot, it chose criminal silence to get a similar ordinance issued for getting the forcible occupation of Pandit property vacated by illegal occupants. The resulting distress sale of their property may prove to be yet another move to thwart their return and bring religious cleansing exercise, begun in 1989, to its logical conclusion.

Even in the Jammu region, they have been at times subjected to politically sponsored ethnic hatred besides general neglect which is invariably the share of internally displaced persons in any part of the world. The state government's treatment of the displaced community was most atrocious, particularly of the bureaucracy, creating all conceivable hurdles in their way of having some respite in a situation of trauma. Themselves groaning under serious political deprivations, a section of Jammuites finds it expedient to project the fugitives as extension of Kashmiri ruling class because this section finds a support structure among the Valley Sunni bureaucracy, a formidable instrument in the suppression of minority interests in the state. Let it be said that Kashmiri bureaucracy and political heavyweights have played an important role in deepening the schism through their moles in the civil society of Jammu.

Since almost all political parties have failed Pandits and no one seems to have any serious concern for their return, the intelligentsia of Pandit community has taken a lead over the moribund traditional Pandit leadership and raised a powerful demand for a homeland in Kashmir Valley with Union Territory status but minus Article 370. Despite divergence of opinion on other tactical issues, the overwhelming mass of the exiled community is veering round to the view that only the new pocket of tolerance will be able to maintain the social and psychological cohesion of the traumatised community in the new Islamised socio-political structure.

Manipulation: In the overall scenario of regional minority deprivations in the state, deprivations of minorities in Jammu division and Leh district have been relatively milder for two reasons. First, the majorities in these regions belong to non-ruling class, hence better toleration of their respective regional minorities. Second, the Kashmiri Sunni political leadership has selectively cultivated, particularly after 1975, certain minorities e.g. Argon Muslims in Ladakh and Kashmiri-speaking Muslim diaspora in Jammu division, as part of 'Greater Kashmir Plan' and to scuttle political resurgence among Ladakhis and Jammuites. As an extension of the same process, the so-called 'Pahari identity' is being raked up to deny the Gujjar Muslims their due share.

If the claims of Maulvi Iftikhar Hussain Ansari and Mian Bashir, the popular ethno-religious minority leaders of the state for the leadership of the State PCC(I) were overlooked, it was because the Congress leadership in Delhi was so obsessed with status-quo, that it could not extricate itself from a mindset that considers J&K synonymous with the Sunni elite of the Valley.

Nearly all the minorities in Kashmir have been the victims of a fraudulent delimitation carried out by that evil genius who presided over the revenue department of the state throughout his tenure in the office. The master stroke came in 1979 when the Sheikh had realised that as a result of the war of 1971, his hopes of the Sheikhdom were dashed for all times to come. To Mirza Afzal Beg goes the credit of institutionalising communal discrimination in J&K Gujjar, Pandit and Shia dominated constituencies were realigned in such a way that out of 42 assembly constituencies in Kashmir, Kashmiri Sunnis are able to send their own candidate to 40 constituencies and influence the selection of the remaining two. Even recently Mian Iftikhar Hussain Ansari accused his party chief Mr. G.R. Kar of transferring Shia votes from his constituency. Even from non-ethnic Sunni dominated areas of Uri and Karnah (in Kashmir region) it is the Kashmiri Sunni settlers (Khojas) who manipulate their successful election.

In order to consolidate their grip further on the political structure, politically alert Sunnis of the Valley have been exercising effective control on all political organisations of the state such as Congress, National Conference, Janata Dal, CPI, CPI(M) and Jamaat-e-Islami. Through this total away over the legislature and government, Kashmiri Sunnis have been able to ‘swamp’ the State secretariat, the police, revenue, education, finance, industry and judicial departments; dominate professional and technical institutions and universities; control trade and commerce and over develop the Sunni-dominated areas".

Political attitudes: Yet despite this precedence and more than matching appeasement, separatism and militancy have remained exclusively Kashmir Sunni Muslim phenomenon. While Gujjars have been fiercely opposing every form of separatism, the Shias are not enamoured of 'aazadi' or even autonomy in view of apprehension of further erosions of their rights in a phenomenon where accountability is minimal. Their past experience of political behaviour of Kashmiri Sunni leadership and increasing politicisation of the sectarian strife in Pakistan, besides the changing role of Iran at the regional level has sensitised them to the dangers of a political dispensation in which Kashmiri Sunnis would hold unbridled power.

Even in the past, the traditional Gujjar and Shia leadership has remained either pro status-quoist or has opposed such political formations that have been seeking exclusive precedence of Kashmiri Sunnis. The considerable success achieved by the special task force of police today testifies to the strongly patriotic role of different regional minorities of the state.

Gujjar and Shia communities, embarrassed by the menace of on-going militancy in Kashmir Valley reject autonomy as a solution to the impasse. They, instead, advocate a political structure that takes into account their economic and political privations and guarantees justice and equity. It is to be noted that although the union government has conceded the Gujjars of J&K State the status of Scheduled Tribes, yet the Sunni domination of state administration creates innumerable hurdles for them in their pursuit of enjoying the benefits that should accrue to them.

Solution: Since the region is the only subnational identity recognised for sharing of political power, the solutions emanating from adverse quarters at home or abroad have recognised the need for guaranteeing regional autonomy to Jammu and Ladakh. But this arrangement does not satisfy the aspirations of minority groups, who remain obstructed from real participation in democratic power and the nation building process.

To ensure the participation of these mainstream minority groups, genuine democratisation of the states' political structure and strict secular governance are desirable. There is a need for conventional, constitutional and institutional guarantees for the regional minority groups to break the phenomenon of sectarian and communal majoritarianism. Even handed treatment of all ethno-religious communities leads to genuine democratization of the polity. Realignment of constituencies in all the regions of the state by application of uniform set of principles will put an end to political disabilities hitherto experienced by different minority groups. Creation of hill constituencies for the Gujjars and reservation of seats for the Gujjars and Jats will be a step forward in this direction.

In so far as the displaced Pandits are concerned the broad-basing of the Panun Kashmir demand has opened new vistas for return of Pandits as well as for resolution of Kashmir dispute.

Since Panun Kashmir is no longer perceived as a demand for an exclusive 'Hindu Homeland' it will provide an alternate political structure to all those Kashmiris, irrespective of religion and faith, who support secular integration with India and feels that Art 370 has served the interests of only a small acquisitive class. The creation of an alternate political structure in the Valley will strength the forces of integration, pluralism and democracy. Benefits of fuller integration with India through Panun Kashmir will exercise a healthy impact on the other 'Autonomous Kashmir'.

The option of providing two alternate political structure sin Kashmir, one without Article 370 and the other with Article 370 infact, will help forge a national consensus on Kashmir.

Also the very location of Panun Kashmir, besides providing  foolproof link to Ladakh region will release district of Doda from the baneful influences of sectarian and fundamentalist politics of Kashmir valley. It will help the region in evolving a distinct secular personality of its own, a healthy and futuristic personality.

Finally, creation of Panun Kashmir under the hegemony of mainstream secular nationalistic politics will pre-empt all those conspiracies which have or are likely to destabilize Kashmir valley in future. The resolute opposition by the separatists - disguised or committed - to this demand, is to be seen in this context.

Dr. T.H. Chowdary

At the time of Independence, two ‘native’ states posed special problems for India. One was Hyderabad ruled by the Nizam, having 92 per cent Hindu population. The Razakars, a rabidly Muslim rag-tag organisation held the Nizam in thrall. It proposed the idea that Hyderabad should be an independent Muslim kingdom and that it should be allied with Pakistan and the Nizam favoured it. Even after signing a ‘standstill’ agreement which gives him enough time to decide whether he should accede to India or Pakistan as wanted by the Viceroy, he sent his emissaries to the United Nations complaining about India’s aggression against his State. Sardar Patel knew what danger the Nizam and Razakars could pose. Despite objections from the British officers in the Indian Army and the hostility of Jawharlal Nehru to any military action, Sardar Patel ordered the Indian army to march into the Nizam’s territory. Within four days, the Nizam surrendered and unconditionally acceded to the Union of India. Sh. Patel put an end to their separatism and treachery to India and the oppression of the Hindu subjects. In the next few years the state was broken-up and its three linguistic parts were merged with Karnataka, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. There was no preservation of a legacy i.e. the Nizam acquiring some territories and wanting to preserve its uniqueness the Hyderabadi culture or the Nizamiat or the Deccani ji-huziriyat.

Another state that posed threat was the J&K. Here, the population was predominantly Muslim but the ruler was a Hindu, late Hari Singh, scion of the proud Dogras. Jawaharlal Nehru disliked him strongly. Within the state, the National Conference, which formerly was Muslim Conference, led by Sheikh Abdullah, was waging a struggle against the Maharaja for representative government. Sheikh Abdullah was in jail. The Maharaja would have liked to accede to the Union of India. Pakistan was deadly against it. The then British Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten tried to discourage such a move. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the President of Pakistan sent emissaries to Hari Singh offering him extraordinary favourable terms if he acceded to Pakistan. The Maharaja was wavering. Jinnah wanted to force his hand. His government unleashed armed tribals as well as Pakistan soldiers camouflaged as tribals to invade J&K. The Muslim soldiers of the J&K State deserted the Maharaja’s army and joined the invaders. They came almost up to the gates of Srinagar. The Maharaja wanted Indian forces to intervene. India said that unless he acceded to the Indian Union, no forces could be sent. The Maharaja very reluctantly acceded to the Indian Union. The then Minister for State Affairs, Sardar Patel was not allowed to look into the affairs of J&K.

The then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, claiming to be a Kashmiri came forward to deal with the issue. He got Sheikh Abdullah released. Not only that, he also gave the uncalled for public announcement that the accession was subject to ratification by a referendum when peace returned to J&K. When the Indian forces were able to repulse the invaders and were about to go on the offensive to liberate the areas already occupied by the invaders, Jawharlal Nehru succumbed to the advice of Lord Mountbatten, the Governor General of India and referred the case to the United Nations! That was an excellent opportunity for England and America who were dominating the United Nations to play their game for control of both India and Pakistan. A ceasefire was implemented and since then i.e. from 01-01-49 we have been having armed ‘truce’ and two subsequent wars in 1965 and 1971 with Pakistan.

When the Constitution of India was being written, a special provision was made-Article 370, which was of a temporary nature providing for autonomy to J&K. What was supposed to be temporary became, more or less, permanent by its non-withdrawal in the last 52 years. Unlike any other state in the country, J&K is having its own Constitution! Unlike any other state in the country, no Indian can buy land and own it in J&K. Unlike in no other state in India, a J&K woman marrying an Indian gets disinherited.

Sheikh Abdullah wanted to become independent and carve out a Sultanate for himself with India having the liability to defending it from Pakistan and pouring billions of rupees for enjoying the privilege of defending Sultanate of Kashmir from Pakistan. He had to be deposed to prevent secession of J&K from India.

Sardar Patel solved every problem including the Hyderabad issue but Jawharlal Nehru left behind the J&K imbroglio. We have poured and continue to pour billions of rupees into J&K. It has received the highest per capita development investment and yet, on and off, the political parties including the ruling Abdullah dynasty revive the demand for greater autonomy, for reversion to the pre-1952 status (but not the pre-1947). They also talk of “Kashmiriat” saying that it is entirely different from Indianness or Hindutva or even Pakistaniat. The National Conference, which in effect means the Sheikh Abdullah dynasty’s pocket party, says it is “secular”. It is not that every region in what is J&K under India is having Muslim majority. Jammu has predominantly Hindu and Ladakh has predominantly Buddhist population. 70 per cent of the revenue of the state comes from Jammu but less than 20 per cent is spent on the Jammu region. The Hindus and Buddhists constitute about 40 per cent of the population but in the J&K State government, they get less than 15 per cent of the jobs. All top posts are held by the Muslims belonging to Kashmir valley. Jammu and Ladakh want autonomy but the National Conference and its government deny it, while demanding autonomy for the J&K as a whole. Claiming to be secular, the National Conference government did nothing to stop the ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs from the Muslim majority Kashmir valley. When they talk of the will of the Kashmiri people, the will of the Hindus and Buddhists does not count. Whether it is National Conference or Hurriyat Conference or several other outfits, J&K for them means only Muslims. How then can Jammu and Ladakh be in peace with the Muslims there?

When India was to be partitioned, Mohammed Ali Jinnah wanted Punjab and Bengal provinces as East Punjab was a Hindu-Sikh majority area. In the western part of Bengal majority of the people were Hindus. The Congress wanted that there should be a referendum in all the provinces that were to form part of Pakistan as proposed by Jinnah. Jinnah dismissed the idea as sheer nonsense. He said Muslims were a separate nation and it was Muslims who want to separate. If there was to take a referendum, it should be one wherein Muslims-only vote and not Hindus. “Pakistan was the demand of Muslims, not of Hindus, why should then Hindus vote? The Congress was stumped. It was then suggested by Mountbatten, the Congress demanded the partition of Punjab as well as Bengal provinces so that the Hindu majority areas could be part of the remnant India.

It is an undeniable fact that India was partitioned totally on the basis of religion and nothing else. The Muslim majority areas formed Pakistan. If in 1947, had the J&K also been divided, just like Punjab or Bengal, into the western Muslim dominated Kashmir valley and the eastern Hindu Buddhist majority area comprising Jammu and Ladakh, the former would have acceded to Pakistan and the latter to India. And now there could not have been a J&K problem. Unfortunately Jawaharlal Nehru did not allow any solution and the Indian Independence Act which Mountbatten was implementing did not envisage the possibility of breaking up of, what were called Indian States on the basis of religion just like the rest of India.

By keeping J&K together, injustice is being done to Jammu and Ladakh. Not only have all Hindus and Sikhs been expelled from the Muslim majority Kashmir valley but Muslims from that area and even from across the Line of Control (LoC) have come to settle down in Jammu as well as Ladakh to convert them into Muslim majority areas. This type of demographic aggression is a standard weapon in the armoury of Muslims. When Lebanon gained independence from France in 1945, the Christians were in a slight majority. But within the next 30 years, t