The Union Cabinet's rejection of the J&K Assembly's demand for greater autonomy has raised more questions than it has actually answered in a note explaining the Centre's stand. Equating J&K with other states is not only politically erroneous, but also factually incorrect. A bone of contention between India and Pakistan since Partition, it has a Constitution of its own unlike other States of the Union. Its special status is sanctified under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution.

Moreover, the state's populace enjoys double citizenship rightsfirsily as. permanent residents (State Subjects) and secondly as Indian citizens. J&K can be brought directly under the Governor's Rule – a mechanism not applicable to any other State -- for six months wherein the Governor, besides carrying out all executive functions, has powers to legislate.

All the 42 Presidential Orders to which Home Minister Advani referred while announcing the Cabinet decision, were not directly applied to the State.

These orders came into force by way of amendments to the J&K Constitution.

Another salient feature of the Constitutional arrangement in J&K is that its Assembly has a six-year term - a year more than other state legislatures – with powers to legislate in large ambit of residuary area.

Also, the sheer geo-political importance of the state sets it apart from other regions, particularly in the context of the super-power vested interests. For this reason alone, the Centre's proposed application of a common devolution package to J&K along with other states of the Union sounds farcical.

Whatever might be the parameters of the planned devolution, still far from being worked out in totality, Kashmir deserves a separate and special dispensation. The. decade-long militancy and the concomitant loss of blood on either side has added a frightening dimension to the problem that, in itself, is unique in the history of the sub- continent.

Never mind Farooq Abdullali's sordid record in non- governance, which has contributed amply to the prevailing chaos, the seemingly absurd autonomy-theatrics have exposed the credentials of all the principal characters in the game. The Vajpayee regime's flip-flop over the autonomy resolution, before the Cabinet consigned it to the dustbin, has put a question mark on its claim to a cogent Kashmir policy. Phere is a long list of the naïve components of the Centre's game-plan: Overtures for a dialogue with the Hurriyat leaders behind Abdullah's back; complete failure to foresee implications of the Assembly vote on the autonomy resolution; inability to rein in the irrepressible CM who is an NDA ally and finally the Cabinet meeting convened as a knee-jerk response to a situation crying for serious deliberation ...

Finally, it was Dr Abdullah's action in going for the RSS' jugular - as a riposte to the Sangh Parivar's shrill opposition to the autonomy demand - that made the PMO advance the Cabinet conclave ..

The rejection ... was technically unanimous. But distinct viewpoints found expression in the course of the deliberations - a section of the Ministers even seeking clarifications on the covert contacts with the Hurriyat.

The positions taken by ministers who spoke on the issue ranged from moderate to extreme. While a few sought tough action against Abdullah, others wanted an honourable way out for the Chief Minister.

The formulation that eventually found acceptance was in tune with the middle-path proposed by PM. (Source; The Hindustan Times, 6 July, 2000)