Why was so much blood shed in Jammu and Kashmir if the Centre had to substantially re-implement the rescinded state cabinet order temporarily transferring forty hectares to the Amarnath Shrine Board for the two months of the yatra? This is not an issue of wiser on hindsight, but about playing sectarian politics in a sensitive state like J and K, which was bound to lead to stoking up "azaadi" forces, which then had to be brutally put down. But why?

Probably, the Centre and J and K politicians did not reckon on the mass sustained protests in Jammu for gaining back the forty hectares. First, the outgoing governor, Lieutenant-General (retired) S.K.Sinha, was portrayed as a "communalist", as though he had committed a crime by pushing for those forty hectares for Amarnath pilgrims, when it was clear the arrangement was absolutely temporary, and that it implemented a high court judgment. The Centre, incidentally, has hidden behind that same judgment to finally re-approve the land transfer.

By all means differ with a governor, or an outgoing governor, as in this case, but understand that undermining his credibility ultimately harms the state, and naturally, somewhere, the Indian state. This is not meant to cover every unconstitutionality of a governor, and governors under the UPA regime are especially notorious. You proceed on the assumption that governors drawn from public life are normally and usually constitutional in the dispatch of their duties, but that aberrations must be checked by a vigilant opposition and, in rare cases, by the Supreme Court. The governors of sensitive states like J and K, on the other hand, have to be engaged with greater circumspection, and differences must be addressed away from media scrutiny. The vilification campaign against General Sinha, while it may have been music to his successor, N.N.Vohra, ultimately went to undermine the authority of the state, and boomeranged on Vohra himself. He played to the separatists' gallery, and therefore opened the "azaadi" can of worms all over again.

Second, Ghulam Nabi Azad lost his nerve, rescinding his own cabinet's order, and hoping against hope that the machinating PDP wouldn't after all pull the plug. But Mufti Mohammed Syed and his daughter, Mehbooba, had other plans. They not only wanted out of the government, they wanted to embarrass Ghulam Nabi, and lead on an issue strikingly emotional to Kashmiris, and thereby reap the benefits during state elections. This is not the staunchly nationalist Mufti one knows, a former Union home minister, and who kept the Congress flag flying in the state despite the opposition of Sheikh Abdullah, and appeared the voice of reason in the early days of Kashmiri terrorism. It is hard to figure Mehbooba, whether her politics is her own or guided by another hand.

The tough but sensible thing for Ghulam Nabi to have done was not to rescind the cabinet order, but let the government go, on the principle that a cabinet order was sacrosanct, and could not be rescinded without undermining the prestige of the state. And second, a high court judgment was being implemented. In the course he took, advised by God knows who, Ghulam Nabi gave in to the agitating separatists, and burned his boats with the Jammu electorate. In Kashmir, Ghulam Nabi has no base, and for the Congress's capitulation, votes were not expected, but it let out the "azaadi" genie.

Third, the government acted coy in dealing with the "separatists". Killing civilians is not the answer, certainly not, but the separatists got a clear message that there was no government to check them. On Independence Day, when Srinagar is usually tightly sewn, security forces were withdrawn after the official flag-hoisting to permit the separatists to let off steam, and they promptly came up with Pakistani flags. Abuse, heckling and taunting of security forces followed, which on one hand saps state power, and on the other lowers forces' morale. Any self-respecting state would not permit its uniformed forces to be demeaned, and this elementary understanding of the mechanics of state power was missed. It is astonishing that Vohra, a senior retired bureaucrat, could not visualize how the state was being pulled down.

Finally, it is clear the separatists would have won the day - not by "azaadi", which the army won't allow, but by permanent denial of the forty hectares to Amarnath pilgrims - if the Jammu agitators had not remained as steadfast, uncompromising and principled as they did. Ultimately, because Jammu would not stand down, and more and more voices, even from the Congress, lead by Karan Singh, came in robust support of the land transfer, the Centre had to give in. It is a victory of Jammu's people. The historical discrimination of Jammu and the pampering of Kashmir is one great factor for their unity in the face of tremendous odds, and the second is the issue of faith. It was successfully projected that at the hands of separatists, the government was constricting the right to unobstructed worship of the Hindu community. Because no political party was behind this mass upsurge, the government, the political establishment and the media should heed the underlying message carefully.

N.V.Subramanian is Editor, NewsInsight.net. Har-Anand has published his new second novel, Courtesan of Storms.

Courtesy: www.newsinsight.net, September 01, 2008