Dr. Farooq Abdullah heads the National Conference that was once Kashmir’s ruling party. It is difficult to say the exact amount of influence his party exercises in the troubled state, From the manner of his functioning, it can be inferred that he does not enjoy a significant mass following. He had been in London most of these years, Until a few months ago, he dared not enter the valley of Kashmir. Even today, when Indian troops have killed a large number of Kashmiri armed youths, Dr, Abdullah could barely enter Srinagar ‘and stay there under heavy Indian armed protection.

Presumably following its experience in Punjab, the Indian state has been trying to make a Bamala out of Dr, Abdullah, But the latter is not too willing, He has setters that look quite difficult for the Indian central government to meet, He is willing to join the proposed election process provided Delhi accepts the following terms: 1, India Agrees to restore in Kashmira constitutional status obtaining prior to 1953; 2. Such restoration should be guaranteed by the Indian Parliament, In other words, Dr. Abdullah does not want anything short of the pre1953 arrangement. He is not prepared to hold talks with the prime minister unless he brings the Parliament into the picture. Only then will he agree to participate in the election.

Whatever the fate of Dr. Abdullah’s stand, it is quite clear that prime minister Rao is neither inclined nor in a position to introduce any meaningful reforms in Kashmir, He is prepared to hold an election merely to fulfill a constitutional requirement as well as to parade an “achievement” on the eve of general parliamentary election in India scheduled for early 1996. Rao is in dire need of a so-called ‘breakthrough’ in Kashmir, more so as Beant Singh’s assassination has deprived him of a convincing talking point about Punjab. The Congress (I) cannot afford to meet Dr. Abdullah’s demands because the BJP in that case will have an issue to drum up Hindu nationalist support. In fact, the present ruling group itself is conservative enough not to do anything drastic anywhere, including Kashmir. Rao believes that nothing more is required to be done in Punjab after the so-called peace has been restored there with the help of armed forces. The Indian home minister seeks to bring round Abdullah by suggesting that the government would talk to an elected government in Kashmir. The same thing was said by India about Punjab on the eve of 1992’s election but subsequently Delhi’s stand was that the Punjab problem has been resolved. S.B. Chavan’s vague promise of “talks after the poll” has failed to fool the National Conference leadership.

‘Thus India faces either the prospect of “no poll” in the near future or a poll irrespective of Kashmiris boycott. A decision has to be taken in the next few weeks, because the present term of the central rule in Kashmir expires in January. India will be reluctant to hold the election if the Hurriyat Conference decides to set up its candidates. For, India cannot let a government to be formed by those who stand for freedom for Kashmir. In fact, a boycott by the militant groups or their supporters suits the Indian government better than their participation, provided it is assured of some sort of move by the pro-India National Conference to form the next government. The prospect of Dr. Abdullah relenting in his stand cannot be rated high because he should be wiser by the Punjab experience. He is not willing to hold. talks even with a government that has a working majority in the Indian Lok Sabha. This is in sharp contrast with the 1989 stand of a section of Punjab militants who were prepared to hold talks even with a prime minister who was in minority and whose government ‘was dependent on the Congress (I). Dr. Abdullah is obviously wiser and he knows it too well that even the ruling Congress (I) cannot afford any meaningful reforms in respect of Kashmir because the Indian polity as a whole is not prepared to give room to minorities. If for any reason or due to a set of secret assurances, Dr, Abdullah changes his stand and agrees to participate in the polling, he is likely to face a massive political defeat by way of resounding boycott by the people of Kashmir. As such, India and the National Conference which, in essence, supports the status quo with certain reforms, have aHobson’s choice before them, The Indian dilemma should serve as an eye-opener to the world as to the real nature of India’s occupation of the states like Kashmir, and to a lesser extent, Punjab.

 

Article extracted from this publication >>  October 13, 1995