It speaks for the cordial relations between Mrs. Indira Gandhi and Dr. Farooq Abdullah that they have managed to avoid a possible confrontation on the Jammu and Kashmir resettlement bill without either side having to compromise its position. The Prime Minister has decided to refer the bill to the Supreme Court and the State chief minister has announced that his government would abide by its verdict, whether favourable or unfavourable. This is a neat solution to the problem. In a sense, neither Mrs. Gandhi nor Dr. Abdullah had much of a choice. She could not have, even if she had tried, prevented the state legislature from re-enacting the legislation after the Governor, Mr. BK Nehru, had returned it to the government. The National Conference enjoys an overwhelming majority in the state legislature and the sentiment in it in favour of the bill is obviously quite strong. Dr. Abdullah, on his part, could neither have prevented a reference to the Supreme Court nor refused to abide by its verdict. For the court’s writ runs as much in Jammu and Kashmir as in any other part of the country. And even if the Union government had decided to advise the President to give his assent to the bill, its BJP and other opponents would have gone to the Supreme Court in any case. But in the absence of understanding between the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister, an agitation would almost certainly have been whipped up in the state which would have inevitably complicated once again the relations between New Delhi and Srinagar.
As explained in his note to the state government by Mr. BK Nehru, the bill is open to serious objections both on security and legal-constitutional grounds. As the Centre sees it, it is not within the competence of the state legislature to in effect modify the country’s citizenship law. And as Mrs. Gandhi has said, while New Delhi is willing to consider each case on its merit, it cannot possibly allow all those in Pakistan who claim to be refugees from Jammu and Kashmir to return if they so choose because that would throw the state open to foreign agents and saboteurs. Sheikh Abdullah contested New Delhi’s position on both counts. Perhaps he believed what he said. But it is certain that he would not have gone ahead with the legislation if his relations with Mrs. Gandhi had not deteriorated. It was an act of defiance on his part. When Dr. Abdullah succeeded his father, he made it known that he would be seeking cooperation and not confrontation with New Delhi. As such he would in all probability have liked to allow the bill to lapse. But this choice was perhaps not open to him, if it is in fact true that there exists a strong sentiment in favour of the bill in his party. He could perhaps also not have afforded to be seen to be giving up something on which the Sheikh was supposed to be keen. After all, he has to win the forthcoming election and his claim to a popular mandate rests so far largely on the fact of his being his father’s son and chosen heir. In the larger national interest the opponents of the bill in Jammu headed by the Bharatiya Janata party would be well advised not to precipitate an agitation which cannot but embarrass Dr. Abdullah.