Working Group Report On Center-State Relations
Non-Committal On Autonomy
By Syed Junaid Hashmi
15 April, 2010
Countercurrents.org
Contrary to general impression, Justice (Retd.) Sagheer Ahmed working group report on crucial subject of centre-state relationships has neither recommended nor rejected proposed autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir but urged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that controversial issue of granting certain constitutional guarantees to state be debated further for a possible consensus.
The 196 page report alongwith 400 pages of annexures and a small booklet of recommendations though addressed to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was strangely presented to Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Omar Abdullah on December 23, 2009 in Jammu by the chairman of the working group Justice (Retd) Sagheer Ahmed through its Secretary Ajit Kumar.
This inexplicable act of the working group set off a political row for and against autonomy. National Conference (NC) talking advantage of the controversy went on to strengthen the fictional impression that its edited proposal of “Greater Autonomy” had been accepted and recommended by working group (WG) as only possible way of restructuring centre-state relationships
However, contents of report and annexures appended with it tell a contrasting story to what was made public about autonomy plan through an official handout released by Jammu and Kashmir government. The relevant recommendation of working group on the other hand says that autonomy plan of National Conference (NC), PDP’s self-rule be discussed alongwith other proposals opposing both these prepositions.
“If consensus is arrived at in this process, appropriate follow-up action may be taken,” recommends the report. The report says that Self-rule proposal of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was explained in parts, first by former Deputy Chief Minister Muzaffar Hussain Baig and later in the last meeting of working group on September 2, 2007 by the PDP president Mehbooba Mufti.
It affirms both the PDP representatives were requested to submit copy of self-rule proposal for consideration but the same was not provided to the Working Group as promised by PDP during the course of the proceedings or later when the recommendatory report was being compiled by the group.
However, report maintains that whatever Mehbooba Mufti and Muzaffar Hussain Beig spoke or proposed about ‘Self-Rule’ during the course of meetings of working group at Jammu and New Delhi respectively has been recorded in the minutes. The report while imploring upon Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to hold another round of talks and discussion with political, social and other groups has said that if PDP comes up with documents containing specific proposals of "Self Rule", the same should be debated alongwith the NC’s “Greater Autonomy” proposal.
The report has gone on to say that two Indian Prime Ministers have promised of further empowering the state of Jammu and Kashmir for return of peace and normalcy but it is for the state leadership to evolve consensus over some formula. Over the much debated Article 370, which confers special status to the state, group has in its report subtly adopted line taken by Gajendragadkar Commission which was set-up in 1968 to address regional disparities and suggest means of empowering regions.
Referring to recommendations of Gajendragadkar Commission, the group has maintained that it is for the people of Jammu and Kashmir to decide how long to continue Article 370 in its present form and when to make it permanent or abrogate it forever. Like the present Justice (Retd.) Sagheer Panel, Gajendragadkar Commission had also left it to political leadership of Jammu and Kashmir to arrive at a consensus over Article 370.
The report has explicitly stated that parliament of India and the people of Jammu and Kashmir have power to decide since no consensus could be arrived at during the respective working group meetings. Referring to demand for scrapping of Article 356 of constitution of India under which the Centre has powers to impose Governor’s rule in any part of the country including J&K, the report has discussed in detail opposition of BJP and other Jammu based leaders and later said that the issue would be difficult to settle until a consensus is arrived at over the scrapping of this controversial article of indian constitution.
The report has asked the central government to address this issue and appraise the Jammu and Kashmir government about reasons for non-abrogation of this article which in any case has subjective value. The report has discussed in detail major prepositions of autonomy and self- rule proposal and referred to working group meetings wherein report says that there was no ‘meeting point’ among the participants.
The report says that NC led by Present Finance Minister Abdul Rahim Rather and CPI (M) led by Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami and CPI led by Rehman Takroo supported autonomy, PDP favoured self-rule, BJP representatives Arun Jaitley and Ashok Khajuria strongly advocated abrogation of Article 370 while LUTF leader Thupstan Chhewang sought Union Territory status for Ladakh.
However, contrary to public posturing and stand of BJP leaders over granting Union Territory (UT) status to Ladakh, the working group report says that party’s representative Arun Jaitley repeatedly called for maintaining structural integrity of J&K. Report outlines that Jaitley during meetings of working group did not support LUTF representative Thupstan Chhewang’s demand for giving UT status to Ladakh.
“Integrity of Jammu and Kashmir has to be maintained at all cost,” is what Arun Jaitley said during the meetings of the working group. Moreover, the representative from Kargil Haji Nissar Ali stressed for strengthening relationship of Ladakh with other parts of state. Hence, Chhewang’s demand failed to muster support of other members and it is because of this reason, demand for union territory status to Ladakh is rejected, report concludes.
The report has rejected the BJP’s much hyped demand of ‘delimitation of constituencies’ stating that the process has been barred across India through a constitutional amendment, which was followed in situ by legislative assembly of Jammu and Kashmir. “Since the Constitutional amendment is not possible without political consensus, same cannot be held till the first census is carried out after the year 2026,” the report affirms.
Another striking features of Justice (Rtd) Sagheer Ahmed working group report is that it has found nothing improper or objectionable in the process of application of central laws to Jammu and Kashmir from 1954 to till date which in political parlance is dubbed as ‘slaughter of autonomy’.
The working group in its report has noted that while Jammu and Kahsmir constituent assembly under the Prime Ministership of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed took up the task of framing constitution which was ultimately enforced with effect from January 26, 1957; the then president of India with the concurrence of state government issued constitutional application to Jammu and Kashmir order (C.O.No.10 dated January 26, 1950) authorizing union parliament to make laws with respect to matters specified in the second schedule to the order.
This constitutional order, according to the WG report was superseded by another order on May 14, 1954. By this new constitutional order, a number of provisions of the federal constitution were made applicable to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Constitutional Order no 48 was amended by 43 others orders from February 11, 1956 (C.O.51) to February 19, 1994 (C.O.154).
Interestingly, the working group report has further noted that a solitary serious attempt initiated by late Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah in 1980 after his return to power fell by the way side for want of interest in the state leadership to pursue it to its logical end. Page 52 of the working group report says “260 articles out of 395 of the federal constitution, 94 out of 97 entries of union list and 26 out of 47 entries of concurrent list of seventh schedule of the federal constitution have been applied to the state. Similarly, out of 12 schedules, 7 have been applied to the state in terms of article 370 of the constitution.”
It further notes “The left over 135 articles relates to matter under Para-VI of the constitution of India which pertains to matters concerning the executive, legislature and high courts of the states of the union and provisions whereof are identical to the provisions of the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.”
The report maintains “The entries 8 (Central Bureau of Intelligence and Investigation), 9 (Preventive detention for reasons connected with Defence, Foreign Affairs, or the security of India; persons subjected to such detention) and 34 (Courts of wards for the estates of Rulers of Indian States) from the union list have not been applied so far.”
It says “Entries 3, 5, 6,7,8,9, 10, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 37, 38, 41 and 44 of concurrent list which have not been applied to the state relate mostly to matters of social legislation, charitable institutions, relief and rehabilitation of displaced persons, transfer of property act, Transfer of property other than agricultural land; registration of deeds and documents, Contracts, including partnership, agency, contracts of carriage, and other special forms of contracts, but not including contracts relating to agricultural land, Actionable wrongs alongwith Bankruptcy and insolvency.”
Referring to NC’s position on “Erosion of Autonomy”, Justice Sagheer’s panel upholds the view that the central provisions have been applied under prescribed procedure and with duly elected state government’s in position from time to time. In procedural terms, it appears that these measures had the sanction and approval of state government of corresponding period which in turn represented the will of people.
Making a mention of abortive effort made by sheikh government to reverse the process, the report has noted that sub-committee appointed under the Chairmanship of then Deputy Chief Minister Late Mirza Mohammed Afzal Beig with then Minister for Finance, Planning and Housing Late D.D.Thakur, then Forest Minister A.K.Tikoo, then Transport Minister late G.M.Shah, then Industry Minister Late G.N.Kochak, Chief Secretary and Secretary Law as its members was asked to give its report (within 15 days) i.e. by October 5, 1978.
The Committee had been given the mandate to review central laws including provisions of the constitution of India extended or applied to the state of Jammu and Kashmir after 1953 and to report whether the operation of any of the laws was detrimental to the interest of the State. At page 66, the report notes that “None of the Members of the sub-Committee however attended the meetings with the result that the Report could not be prepared within the time fixed by late Sheikh Abdullah.”
The WG report recalls “On one occasion, therefore, Sheikh Abdullah had to express his indignation on the Report not being finalized. This prompted D.D Thakur to go into the whole question himself and he prepared his Report dated July 18, 1981 which cannot but be described as a lucid exposition of law.”
With Late Afzal Beig’s arbitrary ouster from the state cabinet, the sub-committee was reconstituted vide cabinet decision no.851 on November 16, 1978 and the then Chief Minister Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah replaced Beig as chairman of the committee. However, Sheikh was unable to find time to chair meetings of this crucial committee and subsequently, vide cabinet order dated 2-1-1979, he asked D.D.Thakur to chair the meetings of this crucial sub-committee.
Sagheer panel says that Thakur prepared the report for the consideration of the cabinet. However, more importantly, the working group report has noted grievances of Thakur which he (D.D.Thakur) had then noted on the first part of his report. On page 69 of the WG report, original contents of Thakur’s report have been reproduced.
“Because of various preoccupations of the members of the Committee, the meetings of the Committee became very difficult. With the result, no progress could be made in the matter. On 15-6-1981, the issue came up for discussion in the Cabinet when the Chief Minister expressed his anguish at the delay in the submission of the report to the Cabinet. It was in this background that I offered to prepare a report which the rest of the members of the committee could consider and comment upon,” the report says.
According to Sagheer Panel, D.D.Thakur took into consideration the provisions of Article 370 of the Indian constitution, Delhi Agreement of 1952 and the Kashmir Accord of 1975 besides other relevant documents and circumstances to come to the conclusion that the laws made by indian parliament including those on the topics of concurrent list of VIIIth schedule which did not apply to the state of Jammu and Kashmir were properly applied.
However, before it could reach cabinet, one of the sub-committee members namely then Minister for Revenue and Forest Late Ghulam Nabi Kochak in his report dated April 11, 1982 expressed serious reservations with regard to the contents of the report. It is believed that Kochak with late G.M.Shah’s support who at that time was transport minister virtually vetoed Thakur’s report.
In any case, the cabinet never came to see much less consider this report by the time Sheikh expired in September 1982. Justice Sagheer writes “It is not clear what happened to these two reports; whether they were placed before the Cabinet or the House and discussed; and, if so, what decision was taken and which Report was accepted arid which rejected. A query to this effect was made to the State Government and the Law Department, Government of Jammu and Kashmir vide No.PS/PSL/2009/247 dated 13-5-2009 stated that the Report was never laid on the table of the House.”
The last nail in the coffin on the issue of erosion of autonomy was the unanimous resolution of state legislature, with former Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah led NC having 2/3 rd majority in both the houses of state legislature, sponsoring the resolution for the restoration of autonomy to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The BJP led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) which was ruling at the centre and of which National Conference with was a component summarily rejected the resolution
This resolution was drafted by a committee set-up by then Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah in 1996 under Dr.Karan Singh’s chairmanship who, however resigned on July 31, 1997. Later, Ghulam Mohammed Shah became chairman and the report of the committee before the two houses of legislature on April 13, 1999. It was adopted by the state legislative assembly on June 26, 2000 and by legislative council on June 27, 2000.
It is notable to mention here that Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, during his previous tenure, had set up five working groups on confidence building in Jammu and Kashmir on May 25, 2006, at the end of the second round table conference in Srinagar. The first and third conferences were convened in New Delhi on February 25, 2006 and in Jammu on April 25, 2007.
Headed by Justice (Retd.) Sagheer Ahmed, working group on centre-state relations held first meeting at New Delhi on December 12, 2006 (NC abstained from this meet), second at Jammu on February 3, 2007 and third at New Delhi on March 29, 2007. The group last met for two days on September 2 and 3, 2007 again the Union Capital but failed to come up with recommendations as members were seen to be pulling in too many directions.
The other four working groups on Strengthening Relations Across LoC (Line of Control dividing Kashmir between India and Pakistan), Confidence Building Measures Across Segments of Society in the state, Economic Development of Jammu and Kashmir and Ensuring Good Governance-submitted their recommendations to the prime minister in the third round table conference on April 25, 2007.
Writer is Journalist presently working with Jammu and Kashmir’s oldest and prestigious daily “Kashmir Times” and can be contacted at [email protected]
