Anatomizing self governance

The POST, Sun, Jan,1, 2006.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema


It has become somewhat customary that all moves made by Pakistan ought to be initially rejected by India. It is difficult to ascertain whether or not this policy pursuit has become an integral part of Indian attitude towards Pakistan or it is deemed as a suitable device to be employed periodically in congruence with the dictates of the situation and prevalent environment. However the story of Indo-Pak relations is studded with innumerable examples when India curtly rejected all those proposals that emanated from Pakistan but later good sense prevailed and they began to subject many of those proposals to rigorous analysis. The recent past has also witnessed this kind of attitudinal behavior.

Many innovative proposals have been advanced by the Pakistanis during the recent past including the opening of LOC, demilitarization and the idea of self governance in Kashmir. All of these proposals were initially curtly rejected by India but later feelers were thrown that some merit does exits and they are being examined. The question that comes to one’s mind that why do the Indians opt for quick rejection and project it as a non starter initially. Is it because they are inherently suspicious of all Pakistani moves or is it because they want to deny the credit to Pakistani innovative approach or is it that they can read the end result which does not fit into their policy pursuits or is it meant to cater for the domestic dynamics?

Whatever the reasons that the Indian decision making elite may have entertained or continue to entertain, the continuous barrage of innovative ideas does confront them with difficulties and at times have even put them on somewhat defensive stance. Among the new ideas that the Pakistanis have been advancing includes what is called the concept of self governance which was initially set aside but now it has been reported that it is being discussed at the Track II level presumably with the blessings of Track I. The concept of self governance certainly deserves some elaborations.

What is meant by the self governance?  And more specific question is what does self governance implies within the context of ongoing Kashmir dispute? Theoretically the idea of self governance means different things to different people. There are many available interpretations of this concept which have been practiced over the years and more specifically during colonial periods.  

One interpretation is that it is no different than what is often referred as the maximum autonomy within a country’s constitutional framework. This implies that in a federation the federal government leaves the entire governance to the local people and adheres to total non interference in the affairs of a federating province or state except few agreed areas. Some kind of agreement is envisaged between the federal government and the federating unit. Many countries have this kind of arrangement with their tribal areas which are neither fully integrated nor totally independent.

Second interpretation considers self governance as the first step towards the eventual independence.  It was practiced more specifically in those territories which were under the mandate system or colonies. The country that was given the mandate was supposed to prepare the nations to be able to govern themselves. This implies that the practice of self governance under the watchful eyes of those who were given mandate to prepare and watch them for eventual freedom. Similarly almost all British colonies experienced gradual transfer of power. In order to prepare the colonies to govern themselves, initially the British introduced representation at provincial or state level and then at later stages to the central or federal levels.

The second question that deals with the adoption of self governance within the disputed territory of Kashmir also has many interpretations. The proposal was first mooted by President Musharraf which was initially rejected by India but is now being subjected to thorough discussions by both senior Indian and Pakistani diplomats. The concept of self governance implies that the situation in Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) would revert back to pre-1953 status. According to the Indian Constitutional Article 370, the central government’s powers were limited to few areas such as communications, external affairs defense etc. To restore the status of pre-1953 is not going to be an easy task. Just to exemplify the complexity of the situation suffice it to state that in the late 40s and early 50s  neither Indian political parties were allowed to participate in the elections of IHK nor the Indian civil service was supposed to work in IHK. At the moment the ruling coalition in IHK is headed by Indian National Congress leaders and the Indian civil servants are occupying most of the senior jobs.  

Another question that is being aired is that it falls short of the demand for self determination for which the Kashmiris have made so many sacrifices. Despite the fact that many among APHC leaderships support this proposal, there are some who disapprove it. Their argument revolves around that it fits into the Indian scheme of things. Indian leadership is not making any concession and they have struck to their stated position that no solution of the issue is to be considered outside their constitution.

Assuming that the self governance in IHK is approved by the Indian authorities, the envisaged maximum autonomy in the self governance cannot be attained as long as the large numbers of Indian security forces are present in the IHK. If these forces were only deployed on LOC then it would be in accordance with the provisions of Article 370 but these forces have virtually taken over the entire security apparatus in the IHK. The Indian authorities have repeatedly refused to reduce the forces on the grounds that unless and until cross border infiltration stops they would not consider the reduction of troops. This implies that self governance must be practiced with the presence of large number of Indian security forces. Since security forces would be working under the central government, the envisaged maximum autonomy would not be attained as it has been visualized by many.

A second interpretation is that both the IHK and the AJK would be accorded maximum autonomy in the exercise of self governance with a provision that after agreed number of years, moves towards self determination would be seriously considered. Such an interpretation could satisfy all those who have made so many sacrifices and also sustain the spirit of the UN commitments. But would India agree to this interpretation as it envisages in the distant future the status of Kashmir beyond what the Indians have so stipulated. It is not too difficult to assume that India would not agree to such conditions especially if such a condition is assessed within the past record of India.

It is hoped that in the third round which is beginning in Jan.2006, the ongoing Kashmir dispute would be addressed meaningfully. The fast growing perception in many quarters of Pakistan is that India is getting what it wants and is not conceding an inch. If the third round of Indo-Pak peace process does not produce any tangible progress, it would not only begin to tax the patience of the people but may even take heavy toll of the progress so far made.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.