RSS |   Samvad   |   Vital Infotech Ltd.

August     Last updated: August 12  5:00 p.m.

The resolution on autonomy passed by the J&K Legislative Assembly has done the greatest disservice to the nation, especially so when India is fighting the proxy war launched by Pakistan. It is the resolution that has left all the patriots livid. The implications of the resolution are far reaching for the unity, integrity and security of the nation. The tone and tenor of the speeches, delivered by most of the National Conference legislators were couched in the militants’ language and could also be a threat to communal harmony. However, notwithstanding anything mentioned above, let us examine dispassionately the rationale behind the demand for autonomy.

One can ask, for instance, about the why, what and how of autonomy. Is the J&K Assembly resolution on autonomy inspired by the aims and objectives of autonomy or is it guided by some extraneous considerations and factors? And lastly, it is not morally desirable for the NC to withdraw its resolution in view of the nationwide opposition to it or at least withdraw from the NDA Government? Autonomy is the greatest desire of a creative and constructive mind. It, in fact, is the condition of being free to think, decide and act. No person is prepared to be chained through impositions, restraints or constraints in doing one’s job. Hence, one prefers a free atmosphere in which one could give one's best and realise one's full potential. It is a way to realise what one is capable of. But, then, this is only a means to an end. The tool to establish a better world; a humane social and economic order. It is meant to develop and use the individual capabilities and capacities not for serving the self, but making the humankind happier, wiser, and healthier culturally, intellectually and economically. It is the achievement of mind and body that is the essence of autonomy.

To assess the extent of autonomy, one needs to assess the decline in the number of the poor, the employment provided to the unemployed, freedom provided from corruption, illiteracy, disease, squaler, hunger, provision of minimum and basic needs to the people, etc. That would be the hallmark or identity mark of autonomy. Put into the context of J&K the demand for restoration of pre-1953 position does not, therefore, appear to be based on the desire to serve the masses. The Kashmiriyat is neither going to be protected nor going to be sustained by more and more powers to the local politicians to advance their own cause for being happy to be free from control or accountability.

Now, the question that is being posed here is: autonomy for whom and for what? If it is the autonomy for the masses of Kashmir, we shall have to think in terms of enhancing their capabilities and expand their power to choose. It would mean further empowerment of the people, not of the State. Unfortunately the legislators, who were so vociferous in demanding autonomy to the State, did not express any concern to strengthen, organise and elect Panchayati Raj institutions even though it was mandatory after the passage of the 73rd Constitution Amendment Act. Let the local level government be given powers in relation to all the 29 items enumerated in the eleventh schedule and transfer all the 18 items to the municipal bodies as enunciated in schedule 12 of the Constitution.

If that is done, it will establish Kashmiriyat and people will be integrated with the mainstream. The State Government should not stand in the way of self-government at the grass-root level. This can be one of the best ways to fulfil the aspirations of the people, the common citizen there. The next question that arises is whether the present status of Kashmir in relation to the Centre has really jeopardized the development of that State or the reasons lie in the mis-management or non-governance of Kashmir. In other words is it the lack of autonomy or the lack of political will to administer which has proved a road block in the way to progress and freedom of the people.

The answer is more in favour of the failure of the leadership (both political and bureaucratic) to operationalise good governance. The people are frustrated not because the State does not have adequate autonomy, but because there is a total political and administrative collapse characterised by joblessness, poverty, callousness, casualness, indifference, etc. It would have been a welcome step, therefore, if the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly had debated and resolved the questions of delivery of goods and services to the people in a fair, free and speedy manner, the issues of efficiency and effectivity of administration, the participation of people in the governing process, transparency and openness in Government and bureaucratic performance, empathetic, virtuous and spiritual response of administrators and policy-makers.

It would have been impressive and convincing had they discussed and resolved about the ways and means to inject vibrancy, morality, and other ingredients of good governance into the governmental system. It requires no autonomy, for instance, to restore rule of law, complemented by honesty and integrity in administration. It requires no autonomy again to make sincere efforts to break the nexus between the politician, bureaucracy and the criminals. Further, holding free and fair elections with no use of money and muscle power to rig the elections needs no autonomy. Adherence to democratic, legal and socio-cultural norms is what should be a priority agenda with the Government of Kashmir, rather than demanding autonomy. If the politicians and civil servants are one with the people, they would be most happy and satisfied lot within the existing constitutional arrangements. Otherwise, no amount of autonomy will ever be able to relieve the common man of his sufferings, or maintain his cultural identity.

The intent and content of the above argument is not against decentralisation and devolution of more powers, specially the financial powers to the States in general including Kashmir. Even then, there is a need for the States to honestly analyse the factors responsible for the state of affairs they find themselves in. Despite the percentage increase in the share of the States in taxes with the Centre in the last fifty years and the latest recommendation of the 11th Finance Commission to raise the same to 33 per cent from the existing 29 per cent, the States are in a financial mess. Is it not the right time, therefore, to have a critical review of the management of resources, rather than a mere transfer of more funds to them by the Centre? Is it not an opportunity to examine the impact of policies and programmes on the life and its quality in their respective areas of jurisdiction? The insisting thought is that no degree of devolution of powers, inclusive of financial ones, will serve meaningful purpose until and unless the States grapple with the problems of scams and scandals, populism and opportunism, stable and unstable polity, jumbo ministries, low character and morals, etc, in a more effective manner.

If the States are able to run a corruption-free, fear-free and hunger-free government, even the less powerful status vis-a-vis the Centre would do. Similarly if the States are messed in corruption, callousness, casualness and the politicians are merely engaged in holier than thou campaign, no amount of decentralisation of power will help them provide better living conditions to their people. In conclusion one can say that we need to look not only into the Centre-State relations, but also into the ways the governments, both Central and State, can be made more responsive, responsible, reliable and just. This is where the focus of the debate is bound to be more on performance than an excuses like lack of autonomy or funds, etc.