The question is, will Article 370 be acceptable to those who call the shots here? What will be done about the properties that people from other provinces already own there? Will Gwadar be exempted because most top guns hold property there? Will the army and the navy, who have numerous cantonments and bases, even consider giving up their rights?A G Noorani in his piece, ‘Article 370: Law and politics’, says: “Those who cavil at Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and the ‘special status’ of Kashmir constitutionally ought to remember the ‘special’ treatment meted out to it politically. Which other state has been subjected to such debasement and humiliation? And, why was this done? It was because New Delhi had second thoughts on Article 370. It could not be abrogated legally. It was reduced to a husk through political fraud and constitutional abuse. The current debate is much more than about restoration of Article 370 by erasing the distortions. It is about redressing a moral wrong.”
About Article 370, B K Nehru, who was Governor of Kashmir from 1981 to 1984, in his memoirs, Nice Guys Finish Second, published in 1997 says, “From 1953 to 1975, chief ministers of that state had been nominees of Delhi. Their appointment to that post was legitimised by the holding of farcical and totally rigged elections in which the Congress party led by Delhi’s nominee was elected by huge majorities” (Pp 614-5). So this is the reality of the original Article 370. This happened because of a ‘trivial change’ brought about in the originally agreed upon Article. Differences cropped up between Sheikh Abdullah and Vallabhbhai Patel. To smooth them out N Gopalaswamy Iyengar put in what he called a ‘trivial change’. Noorani says that “in its original form the draft would have made the Sheikh’s ouster in 1953 impossible”. Manipulators can and do put in elements that not only nullify the original intent but work against the whole idea.
The original intent of the Article was, “Nehru was eager to secure Kashmir’s ‘closer integration’ with India; the Sheikh to ensure popular governance.” Noorani says, “Article 370 is more than a provision of that solemn document. It is also a sacred compact with the state.” But apparently this did not happen and to top it all off the Indian Supreme Court also erred in its decision. Noorani says, “The net result of this ruling was to give a carte blanche to the government of India to extend to Kashmir such of the provisions of the Constitution of India as it pleased.” This background should suffice regarding the implementation of Article 370 and the benefits the Kashmiri people have derived therein.
Constitutional articles and clauses carry their own disadvantages and pitfalls. They give a sense of complacency and though they do temporarily defuse prevailing tensions, they can never be a panacea for problems unless they are implemented in letter and spirit and this depends entirely on the establishment’s attitude and mindset for it is they who decide the fate of all articles.
Riaz Shahid suggests that the following clauses of Article 370 be implemented in Balochistan for at least 25 years; whereby no non-Kashmiri Indian citizens can permanently settle, no non-Kashmiri Indian citizens can purchase immoveable property, no non-Kashmiri Indian citizens can vote in the state assembly and/or municipal councils and panchayats. No non-Kashmiri Indian citizens can get jobs; all the jobs in the state are reserved for the citizens of the state. And that the Indian government cannot alter the geographical boundaries of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The question is, will such clauses be acceptable to those who call the shots here? What will be done about the properties that people from other provinces already own there? Will Gwadar be exempted because most top guns hold property there? Will the army and the navy, who have numerous cantonments and bases, even consider giving up their rights? What status would these cantonments and bases have if ever Article 370 is accepted and implemented? Will the FC, which is accused of running a ‘parallel government’ there, relinquish what it holds? Will all the jobs be handed over to domiciled persons? Will these clauses be effective retrospectively? If so, how long back? There are so many questions that need to be answered. Moreover, the possession of land is not the only contentious issue; the Baloch are demanding much more.
Even if we assume that these Article 370 clauses are accepted, the fate suffered by the much flaunted and sacrosanct 1973 Constitution presages doom for them. I will quote from, ‘Towards infamy’, a piece of Ardeshir Cowasjee: “At noon, on Independence Day 1973, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto with joy and jubilation promulgated what has now become a shameful contentious document, the third constitution to be presented to the people of Pakistan. Four hours later, at 16:00 hours, Prime Minister Bhutto ordered his appointed president, the meek and gentlemanly Fazal Elahi Chaudhry, to sign an order, which was notified in the Gazette of Pakistan, Extra, dated August 15, 1973, No.F.24(1)/73-Pub.”
It was mutilated within four hours with Emergency to curb rights and to facilitate arrests of NAP leadership including Nawab Khair Baksh Khan Marri who, like my father Mir Ali Ahmed Talpur, did not sign the constitution because they felt it did not guarantee autonomy and rights to the people. They were prescient to say the least.
The Indian leaders had the partial foresight to understand that the Kashmiri identity would emerge and had tried pre-empting it with Article 370 but their scheming minds did not allow them to stand by their commitment and 25 years later, an insurgency is raging in Kashmir.
Here not even an outward show of tolerance was exhibited; all lands, languages, cultures and rights were considered fair game. The terra nullius (no man’s land) doctrine was implemented in all fields. The Bengalis were told that they will have to adopt Urdu by none other than Jinnah himself. Contrary to all assurances, Balochistan was annexed on Jinnah’s orders; in short, the masters dictated what the subjects had to submit to unquestioningly. The consequences of this attitude are for all to see and rue. Expecting the arrogant and intransigent establishment to make concessions to Balochistan what the apparently willing and accommodating Indians failed to concede in letter and spirit is delusional.
Mir Mohammad Ali Talpur has an association with the Baloch rights movement going back to the early 1970s. He can be contacted at mmatalpur@gmail.com
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010/03/28/story_28-3-2010_pg3_4
No comments:
Post a Comment