About six months ago the ruling National Democratic Alliance establishment was flaunting its "mandate" as the licence to rewrite the Constitution; on the basis of this "democratic endorsement" ... Yet six months later the same crowd and its cheerleaders want to deny Farooq Abdullah the right to invoke his "mandate" to work for "autonomy", as if the National Conference's "mandate" was not sufficiently consecrated in democratic franchise. If the record were to be set straight it would transpire that during the October 1996 Assembly election campaign Abdullah talked more often about the ideal kind of autonomous relationship between Srinagar and New Delhi than did Vajpayee and Advani put together talk in the 1999 elections about rewriting the Constitution.

This negation of the democratic legitimacy of Abdullah's right to invoke "autonomy" is a minor affair when compared to the willful denial of our own word as a nation. It does not behove an honourable country to forget what has been said or promised on the floor of the sovereign Parliament of India, especially during those difficult days of 1995-1996 when our collective efforts were directed at putting in place the buffer of a "representative" Government between the security forces and the alienated people in J&K. The most inspired wisdom insisted that the "problem" would largely resolve itself once a "democratic" regime was installed in Srinagar. And, it seemed, every successive Union Home Minister would give his left arm to cajole Dr. Abdullah to participate in an election.

Participating in the debate on the J&K Appropriation Bill for 1995-96, the then Union Home Minister, S.B Chavan, referred to the difficulty: with whom in Kashmir is "autonomy" to be discussed? His formulation was: "After the elections, there will be an elected representative Government. Those are the people who will be in a position to discuss with us and we cannot unilaterally take any decision. That becomes the starting point for further negotiations." That was as coherent a formulation as Chavan was capable of making. However, the Lok Sabha records show that when ... Somnath Chatterjee asked him: "What happened to 'autonomy'. He (the Prime Minister) has said earlier that short of azadi, autonomy will be given." The parliamentary records further show that, amid interruptions, the Prime Minister (P.V. Narasimha Rao) was heard observing: "He (the Home Minister) has spoken what was needed to be spoken, and you have also understood that much."

Let us hear what another Union Home Minister promised. After a meeting of all political parties, convened by Prime Minister (Deve Gowda) on August 7, 1996, the Home Minister, Indrajit Gupta, issued a public statement. Its last paragraph read: "As far as the promised 'maximum autonomy' to J&K is concerned, all parties agreed that its content and quantum can be decided only after further discussions when there is a duly elected Assembly and Government in the State. There is no desire or intention by the Centre to impose any formula on the people of Jammu and Kashmir without first heeding the voice of their elected representatives." Well, the voice of the elected representatives has been heard, and, rejected peremptorily. "India" is as much a loser as is Abduilah, Can. a nation pretend that its commitments are not solemn undertakings but merely convenient noises? What has changed so dramatically since the bloody days of 1995-96 for reneging on a national assurance. This collective amnesia is now sought to be elevated as statecraft.

It may be that the latest self-inflicted stalemate in Kashmir is an inevitable by-product of the conceptual stupidity that is at the heart of the Vajpayee Government's foreign policy: an untenable faith in the benignity of the American interest in Kashmir ... The pseudo- deshbakhts succumbed to the American pressure and went about signalling the start of a surreptitious "dialogue" with the Hurriyat leadership, forcing the impetuous Abdullah to go into "autonomy" over-drive. This folly was matched at home only by those who pride themselves on being the political heirs of Shyama Prasad Mookerjee; Abduilah's willingness to break bread with the BJP establishment was equated with the craven political opportunism of a Ram Vilas Paswan or a K. Ramamurthy, without understanding the structured precariousness of Kashmiri politics.

However, the follies of the Vajpayee-Advani-Jaswant Singh trio notwithstanding, the fundamental core of the "Kashmir problem" remains, more or less, unchanged: how to make the average Kashmiri think he is an honourable and equal partner in the enterprise called democratic India? Neither the voices (of) the Sangh Parivar nor the "autonomy" theatrics from Abdullah address this issue. Let us checklist the basic ingredients.

First, the 1996 Assembly elections were not an endorsement of the "Kashmir-is-an-integral-part-of-India" hymn book nor a rejection of "autonomy": Second, the Kashmiri psyche continues to subscribe to "we were cheated of our autonomy"; honour and self-respect remain evocative elements in the Kashmiris' quest for collective pride. Third, romanticism of the azadi movement may be gone, but the agents, prophets, financiers, arms merchants, RDX manufacturers and the constituency for azadi are very much in place. Fourth, though Abdullah courageously and consistently argued against azadi he and his National Conference never addressed the political . psychological dimensions of "alienation"; instead, f:United Front regime and later the BJP indulged Abdullah   in his infuriating indifference to the overwhelmed need to' provide governance and to recoup the kashmiri civil society's creative energies. In fact, Abdullah was happy let the Army be as long as New Delhi did not ask him any questions about anarchy, lawlessness and non-governing kleptocracy; in the process, the good doctor squandered his credibility as a custodian of the "Kashmiri identity".

Now the Vajpayee establishment's political cleverness has combined with Abdullah's nervousness to push Kashmir back. It is, therefore, time to work towards a new compact between democratic India and the people of J&K. A way must be found to break out of fallacy of the 1953 accord and 1975 agreement: "New Delhi" could conclude pacts only with the Abdullah family, which in turn nurtured everyone's comforting formulation that "Farooq is our best bet". The Abdullah family is not Kashmir, just as the Hurriyat is not. As long as we continue to proceed on an assumption that Kashmir is the Abdullah family's zamindari, we will not be able to address the "problem".

The time has come for a democratic engagement of Kashmir with the rest of India. Instead of letting Abdullah do a guilt-number on democratic India, he should be asked to explain his willful incompetence. Similarly, Gilani and the rest of the APHC should be asked to explain their "grievances" before the people of India ... In this age of global democracy neither the Abdullahs nor the Hurriyat leaders can be allowed to get away with their self- proclaimed assertions of representativeness. The people of J&K do have a right to an honourable ruling arrangement, but they will continue to feel cheated of such a dispensation as long as they allow the Abdullahs ... and. the Gilanis to manipulate their hurt feelings ... (Source: The Hindu, 12 July, 2000)