Hobbling Mr Sharma

Autonomy is well within the ambit of the Indian Constitution and is represented, as Chidambararm pointed out, by Article 370. (Representational)

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attack on the Congress for “speaking the language used in Pakistan” in response to P. Chidambaram’s remarks backing greater autonomy in Jammu & Kashmir is obfuscatory and deeply troubling. In response to a question at an event in Rajkot, the former Union home minister had said that when Kashmiris demand azadi, “an overwhelming majority” are actually asking for greater autonomy, as promised under Article 370. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley also pitched in, saying that such talk was anti-national. It cannot be possible that the top rung of the BJP does not know the difference between autonomy and what Pakistan stands for on Kashmir. It can only be concluded that it is deliberately conflating the demand for autonomy with separatism. Autonomy is well within the ambit of the Indian Constitution and is represented, as Chidambararm pointed out, by Article 370. The BJP wants Article 370 scrapped. This has been the position of the party and its forbears; no one calls the party anti-India, or even anti-Constitution for its espousal of doing away with a provision that has mediated the relationship between the Union of India and J&K on conditions agreed upon during the state’s 1947 accession. Former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has rightly underlined that J&K acceded to India, and did not merge with it, and is thus different from other states in the Indian Union.

The PM’s remarks might have been a diversionary political tactic from what is proving to be a challenging campaign in Gujarat for the BJP and an attempt to turn the heat on its political opponent. Indeed, the Congress has been quick to distance itself from Chidambaram’s remarks. But the PM could not have been unaware of the possible repercussions of his statements on the ground in Kashmir. The salvo came less than a week after the Centre’s appointment of former Intelligence Bureau director Dineshwar Sharma as its “special representative” in Kashmir. His remit, as described by Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh, is to hold “sustained dialogue” to understand the “legitimate aspirations” of the people of the state. The labeling of the demand for autonomy as “anti-national” or “Pakistani” potentially hobbles Sharma’s Mission Kashmir before he can even start. At any rate, it could severely circumscribe the limits of what is “legitimate” aspiration. In the Supreme Court on Monday, the Centre argued that the hearing on Article 35A — key to Article 370 — be deferred because it could have an impact on the government’s initiative in Kashmir. Amid these mixed signals, it is just as well that the Supreme Court has deferred the hearing by three months.

Sharma’s own brave statements that he had been given a free hand on who to talk with, and assertions by the BJP’s Ram Madhav that Sharma had the mandate to talk to “everyone”, now appear diluted by none other than the PM himself. The existing cynicism in Kashmir about yet another Centre-initiated “process” could have only deepened.