NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Rediff Shopping

Shop & gift from thousands of products!   Books     Music       Apparel   Jewellery   Flowers   More..      Safe Shopping

Autonomy can't be all that bad

In one stroke, it would seem, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah has heightened the level of political piquancy in the country, even if it was not really his intention. And, he has also managed to place himself at the centre of a raging national debate, which was possibly his intention.

But in all the clamour that his insistence on autonomy for J&K has generated, ranging from the hysterically dismissive to the rational, one fact has been snowed under: that if various states in the Indian Union have picked up the refrain of autonomy, then there surely is something wrong with the pseudo-federal setup that we have put together since independence.

Every time a state or a group within has raised its voice, in the Deccan to begin with, in Punjab, in Darjeeling, in Uttarakhand, in Vidarbha, it has been for self-governance. Sceptics could say that autonomy is a stepping stone towards secession and hence towards the ultimate disintegration of India as we know it, and perhaps there is some validity to this argument. But brushing aside public sentiment, especially when it is valid, could prove to be a costly affair.

Vis-à-vis Kashmir, of course, perceptions tend to get distorted, depending on whether you are perched on the plains or on the snow-clad heights. While the rest of the nation - or at least a significant part of it - thinks that Kashmir is a pampered entity with the Union pouring in billions of unaccounted for resources to keep the state within itself, Kashmiris on the other hand feel cheated that promises made since independence have not been kept. The trick is to reconcile these two perceptions, and to appear that you have taken something without giving anything away.

Before one attempts the autonomy mindbender, the more important question that needs to be answered is, how keen is the nation on retaining Kashmir within its fold, and how far is it willing to go in order to retain it. Inherent in this is, whether the nation wants to keep the real estate alone or the people as well that come along with it.

That given a choice Kashmiris - okay, Kashmiri Muslims, since the Pandits have been driven out to Jammu - would prefer an independent existence to being with either India or Pakistan, is obvious. Independence is not a myth, it has several adherents, several fathers. What Farooq Abdullah has tried to do, is not up the ante in the Valley and elsewhere, but tried to put the lid back on the cauldron.

If autonomy has become a four-letter word in the nation's political lexicon, it is thanks in large measure to the Dravida movement that spoke of secession in the same breath as it did of greater rights. The decade of violence in Punjab did nothing to assuage the fears, nor has the Kashmir insurgency after that. If the United States of America - another multi-ethnic society - can survive, even flourish, despite the large doses of autonomy its states enjoy, surely it can't be all that bad for India. If the constitutional restructuring that the BJP has been talking of, could build in genuine federalism, it could only strengthen India, not weaken it.

Punjab, Kashmir, Gorkhaland, Chattisgarh - all these movements tell us that if you don't fulfill the regional aspirations of the people, if you try to smother their genuine demands under the 'Centre is supreme' argument, then you can't really blame the people for flirting with the idea of breaking away.

Columnist after columnist has pointed out that granting more autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir than what it already enjoys under the Indian Constitution could actually have a deleterious domino effect, that the state is mollycoddled vis-à-vis other states thanks to its special status, but all these miss the point.

Which is that Kashmiris by and large are unhappy staying on in the Indian Union. The state may enjoy more rights than available to any other state, but it has made no difference to the people. And yes, inherent in this, again, is the possibility that even this autonomy demand, if and when conceded, may actually fall short of what the people want.

What then? Will independence be the only solution at that point in time? Perhaps. But I don't think we will ever cross that bridge.

As of now, Farooq Abdullah is trying to do a tightrope walk. On one side is the pro- azaadi crowd that seems to be winning hands down. On the other side is the pro-Union group that seems to have lost out long ago. What Farooq is trying to do, is find a middle way between the two extremes. His heart is not with the former group, and aligning entirely with the latter is not going to win him any laurels, or supporters.

The autonomy card is the only option left to him. And, possibly, the only option left to India as well.

Saisuresh Sivaswamy