Delimitation report likely to further estrange Kashmiris
TFrom the BJP’s point of view, the draft is, therefore, everything that the doctor ordered, whether its authors intended this or not, or whether they laboured under any hidden pressures or not...
he first draft of the report of the Delimitation Commission for Jammu and Kashmir, which was shared with the MPs from the state (now UT) who agreed to be its associate members (lacking voting rights), has understandably caused deep unease and resentment across the political spectrum in the Valley, the ruling BJP excluded. Even politicians such as Sajjad Lone and Altaf Bukhari, whose parties are widely seen as being supportive of BJP’s tactics on account of inducements and pressures, have sharply criticised the draft.
The draft provides for six new Assembly constituencies for the Jammu division, bringing up its tally to 43, and just one to Kashmir, increasing Assembly seats in the Valley to 47. Since constituency delimitation, in a fundamental way, depends on population, the Valley has always had more Assembly seats than Jammu. Nevertheless this has stoked resentment in Hindu-majority Jammu fanned by BJP and its earlier edition the Jana Sangh for decades, under RSS guidance.
Ranjana Desai, the retired Supreme Court judge who was tasked with chairing the Delimitation Commission, had publicly set out the criterion that the 2011 census will form the basis of the exercise she was embarking on. According to that census, the Valley population is around 15 lakh more than that of the Jammu division. Assuming that the strength of the electorate is likely to reflect this, it really is surprising that the delimitation officials should be considering adding six more state legislature seats to Jammu but only one to Kashmir.
The basic illogicality of this is palpable. In order to justify their draft product, senior officials have evidently informed sections of the media on an off-the-record basis that Section 9(1) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 read with Section 602)(b) of the J&K Reorgansiation Act, 2019, took into account factors such as difficult terrain, disperse communication facilities available in regions, and the overall hardship faced by persons living in border areas (in determining the cause of representation in legislatures).
The question really is whether these factors, in any reasonable scale of priorities, wholly outweigh or negate the population criterion. If so, population as a basis for deciding representation in legislatures loses all meaning.
The burden of the Hinduwadi song, as can be seen in resolutions of the former Jana Sangh and the BJP, and the significant statements of their tallest leaders over the decades (who are the same people), is that “Hindu” Jammu fails to be adequately represented in the J& K legislature, leaving the field open for the so-called Muslim interests (with which Kashmir is equated) to prevail in public policy. In popular propaganda this deeply false, prejudicial and communal perspective has led to the spewing of venom over many decades, seldom failing to equate a border region of India with fostering Pakistan’s mindset.
From the BJP’s point of view, the draft is, therefore, everything that the doctor ordered, whether its authors intended this or not, or whether they laboured under any hidden pressures or not. From the nation’s point of view, an overtly skewed draft delimitation document such as this is tailormade to add to the sullenness brought about in large parts of the J&K’s population after the tectonic development of August 2019. This is hardly a desirable prospect in one of India’s most sensitive border areas.