So, one of the most powerful ministers of Manmohan Singh’s government that ruled India continuously for ten long years interprets calls for “Azadi” of Kashmir as “Autonomy” for Kashmir or as implementing the Article 370 in letter and spirit. Except Jawaharlal Nehru, no other democratically elected Indian Prime Minister ruled India continuously. [Indira Gandhi ruled for nearly nine and half months, after which she declared Emergency and ruled much like General Zia or Musharraf].
Manmohan Singh came to power after four decades and four days of Nehru’s death. In those four decades India fought two and half wars with Pakistan, conducted two nuclear tests, experienced Emergency and kicked out Nehru’s license raj and became outsourcing hub of the modern IT world. The Kashmir issue however, despite many upheavals remained much the same as it was during Nehru’s regime.
Manmohan Singh Cabinet included many ministers who were supremely experienced in administration, Chief among them were Pranab Mukherjee, Sharad Pawar, Chidambaram, Antony, Shivraj Patil, Sushil Kumar Shinde, Mani Sankar Aiyar etc. So, there was ample time and talent at their disposal to weed out the Kashmir issue and settle it in a way that would have been acceptable for all involved parties. Yet, nothing of that sort happened and the unsettled issue was passed on to the next government.
Chidambaram, one of the most important members of the Manmohan Government that ruled India for a decade simplified the calls for Azadi in Kashmir by interpreting it as autonomy for the state.
First, the calls were made by known group of separatists. Both NC and PDP, main parties of Kashmir have repeatedly fought and won elections within the existing constitutional framework. Both parties have time and again sought more autonomy that Chidambaram feels the separatists too seek. Does Chidambaram now equate both NC and PDP with the separatists who are hand-in-glove with Pakistan in spreading terror?
Of the ten years he was a member in UPA government, Chidambaram handled the Ministry of Home Affairs for nearly four years. Had he felt that Kashmiris genuinely need more autonomy, why had he not acted in granting their wishes, when it was well within his capacity? To be frank, Chidambaram was a not a bad Home Minister. He handled the post Mumbai attack Crisis well. It was during his tenure ‘naxal spread’ was somewhat contained. It was during his time that Aadhar card was supposedly be used for profiling to identify the movement of anti-social elements.
So, how sincere was Chidambaram when he called for more autonomy for the state of Kashmir? Of course, he expressed similar views in the past too, but only when in opposition. What prevented him to provide more autonomy to Kashmir when he was in power? In fact, nothing. As one of the senior most cabinet ministers, an active politician for more than three decades and after acting as the Home Minister, he knew well enough how impractical his current statement is. Still, he did not shy away from expressing this view repeatedly, because he knows that he can afford to say, now that he is in opposition. If he was sincere in his remarks, he would have documented what he meant by ‘more autonomy’.He could have listed the powers that would be transferred to the state which are currently with the union government.
Even Congress distanced itself from the opinion of Chidambaram. The only difference between the stances of Congress and BJP over Kashmir is how they see the Article 370. Congress, like NC and PDP wants Article 370 to exist while BJP wants this article to be scrapped. Except that, there is no major difference in thought between both parties, though there is a considerable difference in the way they handle things at field level.
Why Congress distanced itself from Chidambaram’s remarks?
Because these remarks have a potential to create a new disturbance in the already disturbed union of India. How can the government justify ‘more autonomy’ to one state and deny the same to other states? Are people living in other states are children of lesser gods? The moment the government increases autonomy for J&K, there would be demands from other states. If some states seek more autonomy on political interests, advanced states would seek autonomy to insulate them from other states.
If not implemented uniformly across the country, his idea only would result in balkanisation of Indian Republic. And, exactly for this reason he did not receive any support from his own party that wishes to rule India in the present form. The way BJP bifurcated UP, MP and Bihar during NDA’s tenure and the way UPA bifurcated AP when it was in power testifies and exposes where the interests of these parties lie.
Despite having no mass base, Chidambaram is not like Mani Sankar Aiyyar and Digvijay Singh. His words carry weight. And so, he has to choose his words carefully and he knows it. It is sad to see how people like Chidambaram who are widely perceived as intelligent politicians choose to put short term political interests over and above the long term interests of the nation and its people.