DELIMITATION IN J & K

DELIMITATION  IN  J&K

Has BJP set the cat among pigeons by appointing Mr Amit Shah as the Home Minister? Happenings in last few days definitely suggest that possibly it has. The most worried lot are separatists and political leaders in Kashmir. They have had their way for too long, in fact for over six decades, but now it appears that they may lose that privilege. They have exploited valley ---  Contd >>>>
politics for their personal gains and in the bargain, the nation and people of Kashmir have paid a heavy price. Politicians making millions and holding on to power, separatists living off goodwill of governments at the centre, terrorists being patronised by main stream politicians in the valley, security forces being maligned and many other such issues hopefully will be things of past and find no place in Kashmir in the coming years.

The delimitation exercise that is believed to be under consideration is the first major step that the government is considering so as to ensure equitable representation in state assembly from all regions of the state. Currently it is heavily skewed in favour of Kashmir region at the cost of Jammu and Ladakh regions. Kashmir accounts for 15.8% of the area and 54.9% of the population. Jammu region accounts for 25.9% of area and 42.9% of population while Ladakh region has 2.2% of population but 58.3% of area. (Figures from Census of 2011). The last delimitation exercise was done in 1992-95 and possibly the full impact of forced migration of Hindus from the valley region was never fully factored in. In 2002 Farooq Abdullah, when he and his party were in power, arbitrarily amended the state's constitution to prevent any delimitation exercise till 2026. It was done, without any doubt, to retain political power within Kashmir valley region that has a predominantly Muslim population of over 96%. Obviously this was not a democratic step but more an arbitrary and motivated measure to suit vested interests. Thus J&K did not figure in the nationwide delimitation exercise carried out in 2008.

Currently Kashmir region has 46 seats, Jammu 37 and Ladakh only 4 seats in the state assembly. There are some stark anomalies in the size of constituencies, both for state assembly and for national parliament. If one gets corrected the other will stand corrected too automatically. Average number of voters per state assembly seat in Kashmir region is far less than that in Jammu region. Ladakh because of its size, terrain and other reasons has to have separate yardsticks in this regard. In addition while Gujjars, Bakerwals and Gaddies were given Scheduled Tribe status in 1991 and form 11 per cent of the state's population, they still have no political reservation. In rest of India, constitutionally such sections are provided political reservation. The other vexing issue is not giving voting rights to refugees from West Pakistan who have settled in the state when they enjoy the same in rest of the nation. Thus, there are anomalies that need to be corrected in the state in true spirit of democracy.

If one watches debates on Jammu & Kashmir on national television or reads about them in newspapers, one will often see political leaders from all parties in J&K and even separatist quoting Indian constitution when it suits them. But when it comes to sharing political power equitably across the state and delimitation they revert to all kinds of excuses and bizarre reasoning to retain status quo. On the issue of delimitation all of them refer to the special status of J&K that bars centre from carrying out any changes. However, the truth is entirely different. If local state government could amend state's constitution in 2002 using its legislative powers, the Governor is also empowered to intervene and exercise the same powers vested in him during President's rule. The last delimitation too was carried out provisionally by the Governor in similar circumstances in 1993. Thus legally it appears there is no bar to carrying out any delimitation exercise currently as the state is under President's rule.

Another important issue that needs to be understood why delimitation is necessary at this stage is that a lot of Rohingyas have been settled in Jammu and Ladakh regions with full knowledge of local state governments in the past. The current central government is certainly worried about this and would like to take suitable measures to rid the state of these potentially dangerous immigrants who are all Muslims from Burma. It is also equally important to make sure that they do not gain access to voting rights as time goes by and create another Assam like situation in J&K. It does not require a Sherlock Homes to say who will gain the most if these Rohingya immigrants find a way to merge in the state. Delimitation exercise will be a very potent tool in this regard. There have already been some reports of politicians from Kashmir region visiting these camps to enrol Rohingyas as party members.

It is no secret that from the time J&K was annexed in 1948, minorities in the state have always had a raw deal in terms of political power sharing and development. Minorities have failed to get proportionate representation in state assembly by design. The state has always had a Chief Minister from Kashmir region because of the skewed constituency map of state assembly. All these certainly go against the principles of democracy. It is a pity that central governments in the past, in their eagerness to keep valley's polity and separatist leadership in good humour chose to ignore all this. But then nothing can last for ever and change does raise its head for the better at some point of time. Has the time for Jammu & Kashmir come? One can only wait and watch but a beginning can surely be seen on the horizon.

Today it is an axiomatic truth that Jammu & Kashmir is an integral part of India. Local political leadership in J&K will do well to see the writing on the wall and cooperate with government at the centre. This will ensure that any changes that come in are in the best interests of the state and its population. However, if they chose to confront and obstruct, chances are the centre will have its way and do what it thinks is best for the state and the nation as a whole. In the bargain if the state burns and boils for some time, the onus for the same will only be on the local state leadership. But then going by past experience, these leaders and separatists thrive by keeping the state in turmoil.