Pratim Ranjan Bose
Independent India faced the most
severe rebellion in the northeast, and as is now proved successful in
containing them too. The reference is important as the northeast is home of
some of the fiercest fighter communities with a distinct history of protecting
their territories from invaders till the arrival of history.
But as it came to Kashmir,
Indian strategists looked tentative till August 5, 2019; when the Upper House
of Rajya Sabha passed a resolution to enforce Indian Constitution in Kashmir,
superseding the provisions temporarily granted under the Article 370 to pave
way for its integration with the country post annexation.
To understand what went wrong in
Kashmir, one must, therefore, learn why Delhi was successful in containing
terrorism in the northeast.
During its long journey with
terrorism, India demonstrated two separate schools of conflict management
techniques. The first and the most revered school of thought may be referred to
as, ‘tire-them-out-while-talking’. This is best used in Nagaland, which
demanded sovereignty soon after August 15, 1947.
Nagaland was then part of Assam.
The next decade saw Naga insurgency reaching its peak and India granting
Nagaland Statehood with special privileges, particularly in the areas of land
rights, culture, religion (Christianity) and others under Article 371A (13th
Amendment Act, 1962).
Beginning in 1964, Nagas were
kept busy in tireless rounds of negotiation, alongside the security measures.
The results are before our eyes. Naga leadership is now too old and
tired. They spent most of their lives in camps in the jungle and have
little strength left to fight against the mighty Indian State. Nagaland is now more peaceful
than ever.
The second technique is ‘shock-and-awe’.
This was used in Mizoram in March 1966, when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
ordered air-strike on Aizawl (Mizoram too was then part of Assam and the
Congress-ruled State government insisted on stern action) to break the MNF
(Mizo National Front) rebellion for sovereign Christian State.
Mizos (formerly referred to as
Lusei or Lushai) were head-hunters and was one of the last northeastern
communities to accept British rule, in 1895. They were not easy customers to
deal with. But was it enough of a reason to bomb them, in the same manner as
the US did to the Taliban in Afghanistan? There are not many references in the
history where an elected government used air-power on its people.
Having said that the stern if
not shocking action worked as Mizo rebels stopped entering into frontal
conflict with Indian State since 1966. And, 20 years later, when Rajiv Gandhi
offered a peace proposal, they readily agreed to it in return of religious
(Christian) and other privileges under article 371G (53rd Amendment Act, 1986).
Conflicts were not limited to
Nagaland and Mizoram. Insurgency wave gripped every State in the northeast.
Independence Days were always marked with violence. Road barricades and search
operations by security forces was commonplace towns and cities used to close
shutters at the sundown, till about 15 years ago. All that is history today.
There is nightlife even in Manipur, probably the most disturbed among the
northeastern States.
Noticeable like Kashmir;
religion (read Christian evangelism and rampant conversion till the 1970s),
external influences, all had (and some still has) a role to play in these
conflicts. The travel and training trail of insurgents, the arms and money
trail will give a decent idea of the external influencers.
But there were a couple of big
differences between Kashmir and northeast. First and foremost, the northeast
was not an epicentre of Jihad. Second, northeastern States never had as omnibus
power that Kashmir enjoyed under Article 370 of the Constitution. The State governments,
however corrupt and inefficient they are, willy-nilly worked under the guidance
of the Centre all through the seven decades. The article 371 used for the
annexation of territories starting from princely States in today’s Gujarat to
Sikkim in 1975, offered defined exemptions, mostly concerning land rights,
culture etc. True, it created anomalies. For example, Sikkim pays flat two per
cent income tax or the Union government doesn’t necessarily own the right of
minerals in Meghalaya. However, they were not as great power to challenge the
authority of the Union government.
Historically, conflict zones
attracted huge Central funding which ends up filling pockets of local leaders.
It happened in the northeast, as was amply deliberated by the V C Shukla Commission.
The Centre kept a blind eye to it for decades, and as peace returned, Delhi had
turned off the money flow.
The northeastern States no more
enjoy unending Central provisions under the ‘special category’. Beginning 15th
Finance Commission (2020-2025), they have to make efforts to earn their
bread.
Compare this with Kashmir, where
clever play by the Kashmiri leadership saw, the transitory provisions granted
under article 370 becoming a permanent feature. Kashmir was run on its own
Constitution that empowers the State to have complete control over almost
everything excepting national security and foreign affairs. And, the Centre
kept on footing the bills without legitimate right to ask questions. And, if it
dares to ask, Kashmir will play the Pakistan card.
What Kashmiri leadership did was
a pure breach of trust!
The Constituent Assembly that
was supposed to pave way for its integration with India, was dissolved without
recommending implementation of the Indian Constitution that naturally revokes
the provisions granted under Article 370. And, since the Assembly didn’t
recommend, the President never promulgated the Indian Constitution in Kashmir.
This was purely a fault in
designing Article 370 that didn’t define the responsibilities of Kashmir and
exemptions granted to it. On the contrary, the article virtually limited the
role of the Union government. Sheikh Abdullah used this to create a political
narrative that would survive on blackmailing Indian government at the drop of a
hat.
Article 370 made Kashmir a
country-within-a-country, while Article 371 merely allowed a Sikkim or a
Nagaland to maintain its distinction while remaining an integral part of India.
Kashmir, with article 370, swallowed Indian finances, to train guns at India.
Any argument would end up with the obvious reference of Pakistan and the UN.
This is exceptional.
What is more exceptional is, the
same Indian government that had so skillfully managed the conflict in the
northeast, gave in to the blackmailing of Kashmiri politics, despite repeated
demands for scrapping the benefits of Article 370 to Kashmir.
It is futile to discuss why
India didn’t correct the mistake for so long. Taking Kashmir issue to the UN
and the resulting drubbing in the hands of Pakistan might have taken a toll on India’s
confidence. Whatever the reason, Kashmir became a hot potato: India could
neither accept nor reject it.
The same Delhi that contained
Naga or Mizo rebels, looked uncertain in Kashmir. They were praying for good
senses to prevail over the Kashmiri leadership, which never happened. Kashmir
slipped into a near-perpetual web of violence for the last three decades,
costing 42,000 lives and a bad reputation for the country.
Delhi could neither keep
Kashmiri leaders busy in negotiations nor could it take any bold decisions.
Terrorists were born in thousands. In the absence of any accountability, the
money meant for the development of the State went on filling pockets of
Kashmir’s leaders, bureaucrats - most of whom own lavish properties across the
country.
It is naïve to expect that the
socio-political complexities created over decades, will be wiped out at the
stroke of legislation. But, what the Narendra Modi – Amit Shah did on August 5,
was nothing sort of a coup. It had shown the courage to shock-and-awe the
Kashmiri politics but in the most non-violent manner.
Just as Kashmiri misused the
provisions of Article 370 against Indian government; the government now used
the provisions granted under the article to deactivate it. That the assembly
was dissolved and the State was under President’s rule helped the Indian cause.
The law said President should
order implementing Indian Constitution based on recommendations of the
Legislative Assembly. The law also says that if the Assembly is dissolved,
Parliament can ratify or reject decisions on behalf of the State Assembly.
Jammu-Kashmir’s governor
recommended implementation of the Constitution to the President. The President
agreed to it subject to the approval of the Parliament. The Parliament cleared
it. The annexation of Kashmir was complete.
The craft of the Modi government
lies in the manner in which it presented the case to the Parliament. Kashmir
politics didn’t get a chance to create mayhem. Strict security arrangements
were made to avoid bloodshed. Kashmir already made a huge dent in India’s
image, we couldn’t afford more.
The Upper House, where BJP is a
minority, participated in a virtual referendum on revoking the provisions under
Article 370. (A separate bill was moved to carve out Ladakh and convert
Jammu-Kashmir from a State to union territory) And the results are known.
Not only that the Opposition
voted in large number to clear the resolution, but those who opposed it, like
Congress, are now facing a huge revolt within. Senior Congress leaders are
speaking against the party’s decision and at least one Congress MP resigned
from the Parliament
The reaction was unprecedented
to the least but was not unexpected, India waited for too long for resolution
of the Kashmir dispute. The plan to separate Ladakh from Kashmir was actively
considered for nearly two decades but no one dared to act. Modi did it and
without being as cruel as dropping bombs from the sky, as Indira Gandhi did to
Mizoram. Those who are referring this is undemocratic are merely fooling
themselves.
Most likely this shock treatment
will force Kashmir politics to walk the talk, as did Mizoram. I am comparing
the two because each of these two geographies are subjected to religious
hegemony.
***
Tweet: @pratimbose
