In the Rajya Sabha last Thursday, while justifying the proclamation of President’s rule in Jammu and Kashmir at the end of six months of governor’s rule which expired on December 20, Union home minister Rajnath Singh was careful not to be factually incorrect, but while doing so he entirely evaded the truth.
The picture in respect of Kashmir is indeed entirely clear, and does not support the minister’s narrative in Rajya Sabha. The plain fact is that the Centre has not known how to tackle the special and sensitive situation which characterises J&K.
To begin with, without an ounce of support in the Kashmir Valley, the BJP had opportunistically got into an unnatural arrangement with the People’s Democratic Party (which was equally opportunistic) in 2015 in order to fulfil its aspiration of being in government in Muslim-majority Kashmir.
But with this regime proving wholly unpopular on account of the communal and superficially “nationalist” politics being promoted, the BJP decided to bail out when it couldn’t handle the situation. The security front, fed by alienation caused by the communalised atmosphere and the government’s inefficiency, had turned much too hot and the BJP wanted no part of the blame.
The BJP pulling out of the government led to the fall of the Mehbooba Mufti-led dispensation and the imposition of governor’s rule. The home minister was right when he said that then governor N.N.Vohra said in his report that an alternative government could not be formed at that stage.
Subsequently, however, it was possible to form an alternative government toward the fag end of governor’s rule when the PDP, National Conference and the Congress decided to give it a shot (in spite of their contradictions), and informed governor Satyapal Malik — who had succeeded Mr Vohra — of their desire to do so. But Mr Malik thwarted the move on the pernicious ground that a government constituted of such elements would make the security forces “insecure”. This made President’s rule inescapable.
In his Rajya Sabha reply, Mr Singh appeared to deliberately gloss over this episode. The imposition of President’s rule would not have been necessitated if Mr Malik had played a strictly constitutional hand.
It is only when Kashmir is under direct rule of the Centre run by the BJP that a military-only solution can be attempted in J&K. This has been the case for the past seven months. But the strategy has produced no dividend. It is just as well that the home minister has hinted at fresh Assembly polls in the state along with the Lok Sabha election.
It will be useful if, in the interim, the Centre actively seeks to open dialogue with all political elements in Kashmir. But this can’t be done by the home minister merely announcing once again that the Centre is open to talks.
