‘Disputing terms of accession will end relationship’

AS DINESHWAR SHARMA PREPARES TO TALK WITH PEOPLE AND POLITICIANS OF J&K ABOUT THEIR ASPIRATIONS, NATIONAL CONFERENCE LEADER AND FORMER STATE FINANCE MINISTER ABDUL RAHIM RATHER TELLS YUSUF JAMEEL THAT THOUGH NOBODY IS EXPECTING A MIRACLE FROM HIM, PAKISTA

Pakistan is a party to the dispute. The Government of India has accepted it in the Simla Agreement, the Lahore Declaration and everywhere else.

QThe government at the Centre has somewhat unequivocally rejected the idea of restoring greater autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir. Will it impact the task assigned to its new interlocutor Dineshwar Sharma? A: It will definitely have bearing on his mission. The judgment has been delivered by the judge so what is the fun of arguing the case now? I think it is now a useless exercise. Not only Prime Minister Narendra Modi but finance minister Arun Jaitley has also said that there is no scope for giving any more autonomy to J&K than what is available now. When they have already spoken their mind I don’t think there is any fun in talking to the interlocutor. Nevertheless, this is my personal view. Our party is yet to discuss the issue.

QThe National Conference (NC) revived the autonomy demand at its recent delegates’ conference and said it alone can end the turmoil J&K has been caught in for nearly three decades. What is the basis of your optimism? A: We have acceded to India on certain conditions. If you go through the Instrument of Accession, you will find that this relationship is based on autonomy. Only three subjects defence, foreign affairs and communications - were given to the Government of India to make the laws on and for all other matters concurrence of the state government was made essential. If New Delhi disputes the Instrument of Accession then what is left there. Our relationship will come to an end if New Delhi dishonours basis of the accession. No doubt, we have acceded to India but we haven’t merged with it.

QThe NC leadership has also been saying that Kashmir is a political issue which needs to be resolved politically. What do you mean by that? A: We strongly believe there is no room for a military solution. Kashmir is essentially a political problem. As said we acceded to India on certain conditions. Unfortunately, they eroded the relationship. Apart from the Instrument of Accession, there is Delhi Agreement and other documents like the Presidential Order of 1950 in which the relationship between J&K and the Union is defined. Now they want to use military might and suppress the people of the state. I think that will not help. It will rather complicate the Abdul Rahim Rather problem.

QQ: You want the government to talk to the politicians? A: All the stakeholders.

QQ: Who are the stakeholders? A: Everybody in the state including separatists and Pakistan. Pakistan is a party to the dispute. The Government of India has accepted it in the Simla Agreement, the Lahore Declaration and everywhere else.

QQ: When we talk about Pakistan which is holding almost half of the state it insists on implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions on Kashmir. On the other hand, the separatists ask for alternatively holding tripartite talks to address the issue. Don’t you think that the NC autonomy talk becomes irrelevant here? A: Why irrelevant? It is between India and Pakistan, if it (Pakistan) talks about the UN resolutions. So far as we are concerned we have been telling New Delhi that it should honour the commitments it has made to the people of J&K from time to time. If it disputes the basis of accession then the relationship goes.

QQ: It may sound hypothetical but what if the Centre concedes your autonomy demand and Pakistan and separatists reject it as a solution? A: The NC fought the 1996 Assembly election on the plank of autonomy. We won 59 out of 86 seats including 42 in the Valley, 14 in Jammu and 3 in Ladakh. All the three regions voted in favour of autonomy. That is proof of the people of the state wanting restoration of autonomy. How can anyone dispense

with this longing?

QQ: But the NC did practically nothing towards restoring the pre-1953 constitutional position. It, in fact, didn’t do anything when the Centre showed contempt to the autonomy resolution passed by the legislature. How can you convince the people on your being serious on the issue? A: During the elections we had promised people that we will take all measures towards restoration of autonomy. Immediately after returning to power we constituted autonomy committee. Subsequently, both the houses of the State Legislature passed the autonomy resolution. We forwarded the autonomy report to the Centre as we in the State can’t amend the Indian Constitution. Unfortunately, the then government at the Centre rejected the autonomy report without discussing it. In fact, there were two or three ministers in the NDA government holding the view that the government should consider the document but the BJP which was calling the shots did not agree.