It may not be quite fair to say that the Union government has been sitting idly by in the face of a virtual reign of terror in the Kashmir valley. But it cannot seriously dispute that it has allowed the situation to deteriorate to a dangerous point and it cannot disown responsibility for this because the state happens to be under President’s rule.
Both the Union and state authorities had received sufficient warning long before last Saturday when violent mobs burnt down a number of houses in the historic town of Awantipore, attacked hundreds of buses and cars all along the route from Anantnag to Srinagar and injured scores of persons, some of them seriously, in Anantnag and elsewhere. But they did precious little to forestall this orgy of violence.
The Janata government in New Delhi has perhaps been inhibited by the memory of the emergency. Perhaps it has on that account been reluctant to resort to extraordinary laws like the MISA and the DIR to deal with dangerous characters. But whatever the explanation, it has not acted with the necessary speed and determination to ensure peaceful conditions on the eve of elections in that critically important state.
Last Saturday’s ugly incidents have been reported in the last Sunday issue of this paper and need not be detailed here once again. But it needs to be emphasised strongly that the supporters of the National Conference took the initiative in Anantnag where violence broke out first, that they had stocked large amounts of stones and pieces of rock in their houses and elsewhere in preparation for the planned attack on Maulvi Farooq and his followers who were due to visit the township in order to canvass support for the Janata Party’s candidate there, that the local police stood idle when the former mercilessly beat up the latter and that this pattern was repeated elsewhere.
PROVOCATIVE
This is not to suggest that that Maulana and his men are model democrats who do not believe in and practise violence. The Maulana rode into Anantnag as if he was heading an army – his supporters followed him in 50 trucks and as many taxis – which itself was rather provocative. And his supporters, too, are alleged to have indulged in violence even if on a smaller scale than the National Conference men. But that only strengthens the case for firm action on the part of the Central government.
The leaders of the National Conference could have restrained their men if they had chosen to do so and thereby helped create an atmosphere in which fair and free elections could have been held. But they have not chosen to do so. The charge that they have placed fairly large funds at the disposal of anti-social elements may not be wholly or even partly accurate. But it cannot be seriously denied that they have acquiesced in their activities.
Thus a pall of fear hangs over the valley. Ordinary tourists returning from there bear testimony to the fact that groups of toughs move about freely in the capital itself harassing and insulting anyone they choose and that both the ordinary citizens and policemen advise the aggrieved parties to go away because “an evil wind is blowing”. Surely it will be absurd for anyone to suggest that anything like a fair and free election can be held in such an atmosphere.
This is specially so because the people in that unfortunate state have lived in an abnormal atmosphere for the better part of the post-independence period. For, it is no secret that Sheikh Abdullah during his first tenure of office and his immediate successor, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, ruled in the style of medieval monarchs, that the threat from Pakistan obliged Mr. Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq to move slowly towards his objective of a decent and liberal regime and that only during Mr. Qasim’s tenure as chief minister could the people behave as free men.
COMMUNALISM
The Sheikh strongly resents the slightest suggestion that he lapsed into his old ways soon after he came into power for the second time in February 1975 as a result of a deal with the former Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Indeed, he has never once admitted that he had done anything wrong in his first term in office in the late ‘forties and early ‘fifties. But it cannot be an accident that the Congress party withdrew its support from him as soon as Mrs. Gandhi ceased to be in a position to compel it to back him and that persons representing almost all shades of opinion in the state, including some of those like Mr. Prem Nath Bazaz who stood by him when he was in political wilderness, have formed a united front against him under the umbrella of the Janata party.
In plain terms, the Sheikh’s regime, too, has been far from liberal with the result that the people need more than an ordinary sense of security if they are to vote without fear in the forthcoming elections to the state legislature. Surely only a strong Central presence can create such an atmosphere.
The problem is further complicated by the fact that the Sheikh himself is not averse to inciting local sub-nationalism – witness the manner in which he, without the slightest provocation or justification – invented the myth of the Janata party wanting to do away with Article 370 of the Constitution. What is worse, his followers are indulging in blatantly communal appeals. They are said to be telling ordinary uneducated Muslims in the countryside that the majority community in India is determined to deprive them of their land and other means of livelihood and administering oaths to them on the holy Quran that they will vote for the National Conference.
This is, of course, not an altogether new or surprising development. The Sheikh has always tended to speak with two voices. His accent in the valley where the vast majority of the people happen to be Muslims who have had a raw deal at the hands of all outsiders for hundreds of years, has always been different from that in New Delhi and elsewhere in the country. And since this time the main challenge to him comes not from men known for their pro-Indian sympathies like the late Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, Mr. Sadiq and Mr. Qasim but from those who in the past have been highly critical of New Delhi, it was only to be expected that he and the National Conference would appeal to communal sentiments. Thus even before violent incidents like the terrible attack on one of the Janata candidates in Srinagar, Dr. Jagat Mohini, began to take place, the authorities had good reasons to be vigilant. Dr. Mohini, incidentally has had a narrow escape. The rock, which knocked out eight of her teeth and dislocated her jaw, could have easily killed her if it had hit her on the head.
The Union government does not, of course, have an easy choice before it. Irrespective of party considerations, it has to be wary of the Sheikh partly because his record in office in the last two years has left much to be desired – the set-up under him is not known to have been either honest or efficient or sufficiently interested in the wellbeing of the people – and partly because he has the tendency to change his stance on basic issues according to his convenience. At the same time it cannot feel reassured about Maulvi Farooq in view of his well-known pro-Pakistan sympathies all these years. And it cannot feel easy in mind at the possibility that its likely success in Jammu may enable it to form the ministry in Srinagar even if it does not win many seats in the valley. But whatever the outcome of the election, the Union government owes it to the state to provide the Kashmir valley the necessary sense of security.
COMPARISON
On a superficial view, the law and order situation in Kashmir can be said to be no worse than in Bihar on the polling day last week when at least 19 persons died and many more were injured in violent incidents. But such a comparison will not be valid for the good and obvious reason that developments in Kashmir impinge on the country’s security in a manner that is unique because no other part of India is bordered by two other countries, one of which lays claim to the whole state and the other to a part of it. Also order and stability in Jammu and Kashmir are an essential pre-requisite for good relations with Pakistan because trouble in the state can tempt the rulers in Islamabad once again to pursue an aggressive policy.
This is, of course, not an immediate danger. Pakistan is in such disarray and the causes of the disarray are so basic that it will be a long time, if ever, before Islamabad will be in a position to pose a threat to this country. Indeed, if it were not so, the Sheikh would not have laid aside the secessionist threat as quickly as he has. Nor would perhaps many others have made common cause with the newly formed Janata party there. But even a weak government in Islamabad can find the temptation of at least giving pinpricks irresistible if New Delhi misses this excellent opportunity of assuring a genuinely free and fair election and enabling the people to have a government of their choice. Like the rest of their countrymen, the people in the state prize liberty because they have discovered that much else hinges on it.
The Times of India, 16 June 1977