Bukhari conducts a postmortem of the Justice Saghir’s Report
(Syed Rafiuddin Bukhari, 72, was born in Kreri in Baramulla District. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the Kashmir Media Group that publishes the English daily, Rising Kashmir, and soon-to-be launched Urdu daily, Bulund Kashmir. He had his early education in Sopore, Beerwah and then in Srinagar where from he got his post-graduate degree in English from the University of Jammu and Kashmir, and took up job as a teacher in higher education department. He taught English in various colleges in Kashmir took voluntary retirement in 1995 as Professor. Even though not a professional journalist by training, he has been extremely successful in the field, launching SANGARMAL, the first ever multi-coloured Kashmiri newspaper from Srinagar which is now in its fourth year. Later in 2008, he created the Kashmir Media Group. His interests are reading and writing and building value based institutions.)
WG report on autonomy is all bones no flesh
“The question of ‘Autonomy’ and its demand can be examined in the light of the ‘Kashmir Accord’ or in some other manner or on the basis of some other formula as the present Prime Minister may deem fit and appropriate so as to restore the ‘Autonomy’ to the extent possible” Justice (retd) Saghir Ahmad’s report on Working Group on Centre-State relations.
This recommendation by Justice (retd) Saghir does not merit any celebration. The casual approach with which he has addressed the most crucial part of five Working Groups constituted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in May 2006, not only undermines the demand of Greater Autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir state as put forth by National Conference but further erodes New Delhi’s credibility vis-à-vis a serious and sincere effort to resolve the Kashmir issue.
After going through the summary of the report, as circulated by State Information department, it looks flawed, weak and superficial. Barring a few mentions which one could relate to centre-state relations, the rest of the report deals with insignificant issues like promotion of IT industry, revival of HMT and enhancing of wages. From a cursory look one can reach the conclusion that the retired Judge has been very unfair to his job.
His one line recommendation about Autonomy does not suggest anything, which should make a senior NC leader like Ali Mohammad Sagar happy to say that “we will have an action plan to implement autonomy”. What are the basis on which an action plan can be formulated? Justice Saghir has miserably failed in even discussing what Autonomy means and how it can be achieved. His “recommendation” only says that “it can be examined”. The fundamental question then arises that whether Justice Saghir’s Working Group is far more sacrosanct than State Assembly which unanimously passed a resolution for implementation of a comprehensive report prepared by NC stalwarts like Late Mohiuddin Shah and A R Rather. As such there is no framework or roadmap on which the retired Judge would have asked the Government of India to work towards the implementation. Justice Saghir was not heading any constitutional body so his recommendation in any case are not binding on the government, which summarily rejected the resolution passed by an assembly, which Government of India “sold” to rest of world as the “representative body” of people of Jammu and Kashmir in 1996.
Justice Saghir talks about “Kashmir Accord” as the basis for the Autonomy. But he must be aware of the fact that Kashmir Accord, which means Accord between Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and Indira Gandhi in 1975 is not connected with the concept of Greater Autonomy. There is no mention of Greater Autonomy in that Accord. Except for the handing of power to Late Sheikh Abdullah nothing moved on that. The accord had talked about reviewing the central laws, which in any case are just part of the Greater Autonomy. And that also could not be achieved. The Committee headed by Late D D Thakur to look at those laws did not complete its task. In any case if Justice Saghir had to refer to any such agreement then Delhi Agreement of 1952 would have been the most befitting one which entirely deals with the Greater Autonomy to the state. It is pertinent to mention here what senior NC leader Sheikh Mustafa Kamal told this newspaper on December 5, 2009 about the Accord “There is no such accord. I mean to say this accord has never taken place. Has this accord passed in the assembly? No.
So where from comes the term 1975 accord. If this accord has taken place then why it took almost two years for New Delhi to withdraw its support to NC”. The accord, contrary to Sheikh Abdullah’s wishes does not return to the position as it was before his dismissal in August 1953, contrariwise, it implies clearly that the accession of the state to India is final according to Indian view point.
Most amusing aspect of this report is that abrogation or continuance of Article 370 has been left to people of Jammu and Kashmir. How it can be done, is not known. Whether there should be a referendum or the State assembly should move a resolution to do that, nothing is specific. Does this kind of a flawed recommendation hold any water when people at large in Kashmir demand referendum for “Independence”. The best option for the Working Group should have been to examine all the documents made public from time to time vis a vis the issues related autonomy. In this backdrop a comparative study of Autonomy, Self Rule and Achievable Nationhood made by New Delhi based Centre for Dialogue and Reconciliation is a significant attempt to untie the knot. “These documents converge on most of the issues related to empowerment” says the study adding “even on issues where there is difference of opinion between the three, elements can be deliberated upon and then the most apt one selected”. We also need to keep in mind the fate of recommendations made by four other Working Groups which were not touching the constitution.
Apart from the flawed recommendations, it is important to take into consideration the voices of dissent which have emerged from within the Group. Except for NC, all others have raised objection to the manner in which Justice Saghir “hurried” the submission of the report. PDP had initially voiced strong reservation but a day later it softened its stand saying that it was good beginning. At the same time there is agreement between PDP, CPI (M), BJP, Panther’s Party, Ladakh Union Territory Front and Panun Kashmir that the deliberations were never complete and they had been told that there will be another round before the recommendations are complete.
The timing of the report is also not out of place. It has been submitted at the time New Delhi claims to have set into motion “quiet dialogue” with separatists to find a solution. This, in that background looks putting a cart before the horse. In any sense it does not match with the realities and exigencies on the ground to offer an olive branch to a party, which is in power, without taking on board the alienated section which is in direct demand of Azadi. By offering Autonomy (which incase of Justice Saghir’s recommendation is not the case at all), Self Rule or any other solution to NC, PDP, Congress or any other pro India party New Delhi cannot set any course to settle the issue. It takes us back to notion that it is not sincere and serious in resolving the issue that is why the departures like this.