Stakeholder Discourse

Historically, the conditions of the appointments of Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers in the state did not change even after Maharaja Hari Singh abdicated his throne in 1947.
Stakeholder Discourse
Representational Pic

While talking about the Kashmir 'Dispute' or 'Problem', I don't see a reason for bringing in a chief executive nee chief ministers of the state under discussion. For they are no stakeholder to the Dispute and have no role in its resolution or finding a solution. They simply replicate the role of the Mogul, Afghan and Sikh governors in the State.  

My premise is based on two hard facts. One, nature of their appointment and second, the history of the Dispute and moves towards its resolutions. Historically, the conditions of the appointments of Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers in the state did not change even after Maharaja Hari Singh abdicated his throne in 1947. Their appointments like those of the business executives continued to be on the principle of 'hire and fire' without a clause of one or three months notices from either side. New Delhi like the Maharajas without has been kicking out Prime Ministers and Chief Ministers out of office. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was appointed in 1947 through an executive order by Maharaja Hari Singh as Chief Emergency Administrative Officer on the advice of Sardar Patel, Home Minister. Then re-designated as Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir through another order from the Durbar.   Six years after, he was dismissed by the appointing authority without issuing a notice to him for not 'discharging' his duties to the satisfaction of New Delhi.  For running the show, in the state in line with New Delhi's blueprint in 1953 Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad was appointed as the chief executive. In 1963, he was also kicked out of the office without serving a notice or informing him about his dismissal and another one appointed in his place to be shown the door after three months. 

New Delhi, the appointing authority for the chief executive, did not consider them even as good as a civil servant or even contractual officers who cannot be dismissed or terminated from service without serving a show cause notice and ascribing the reasons. Then what is the status of chief executives of the state in the eyes of New Delhi?  Syed Mir Qasim, one of the chief minister's of the state, who once called himself as New Delhi 'trusted horse' has candidly summed up in his autobiography how New Delhi employees Machiavellian methods to kick out Chief Ministers of the state from the office. And how it conspires by bringing lesser one against him and engages tale tellers that one heard in Moghul courts. (p119) How a chief executive whose very appointment is fragile and questionable could claim to be a stakeholder to the resolution of the Kashmir problem. It sounds, jocular when chief executives out of naivety and ignorance claim to be stakeholders to the Dispute and masters of its resolution. Or out of tomfoolery their subordinates and cohorts invite the resistance leadership for dialogue with chief executive for the resolution of the Kashmir Problem.

Kashmir Dispute during past seventy years had made to the negotiated table between India and Pakistan hundreds of times. There have been summit level talks between heads of the states and foreign ministers. There have been talks at secretary's level. The countries have held hundreds of sessions behind the scene at various levels and have remained engaged on track two for amicably settling the Kashmir Dispute. It is history at no point of time; Government India has engaged the Prime Ministers or Chief Ministers of the State in the talks for resolutions or amicable settlement of the Kashmir Dispute. Interestingly, New Delhi during the talks with Islamabad on Kashmir at no point of time kept them even in the loop. It was only three occasion when three of them were presented as show boys before the international community, Sheikh Abdullah in 1948, Syed Mir Qasim in 1965 and Farooq Abdullah in 1993. For Sheikh Abdullah's dismal performance in UN India was disappointed and saw his presence, not as an 'asset but a liability.  In fact, Rau India's representative in UN is on record to have informed the UNSC that the decisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Government are no consequences to the India's position before the August body. He was referring to the holding of elections for the State Constituent Assembly and objective behind. In his March 2015, speech when Prime Minister, Narendra Modi dismissed CM Mufti Syed's suggestion about Kashmir imbroglio stating that 'on Kashmir, he needs nobody's advice and analysis,.' He was articulating the seventy-year-old policy that the state governments have no role in the resolution of the Kashmir problem. He tacitly suggested to him that he should not see himself stakeholder in the resolution of the problem.  

However, the historical fact is as against its chief executives in the State, New Delhi despite reneging its promise on plebiscite has recognized the resistance leadership as stakeholders for resolving the Kashmir problem. In mid-fifties, when Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was running the show, Prime Minister Nehru through various emissaries and envoy engaged with Sheikh Abdullah in his new avatar as leader of the Plebiscite Front- a resistance formation. In 1964, after his release from detention Nehru directly engaged with him. To evolve a formula for the resolution, the Dispute that would be acceptable to Pakistan Nehru established a high-level committee including foreign secretary Y.D. Gundevia, High Commission to Pakistan, G. Parthasarathy and Vice Chancellor A.M.U Badarudin Taybji. There is no evidence that G.M. Sadiq at any point in time was consulted by Nehru or the Committee on the subject.  Or even when Indira Gandhi entered into an ignominious dialogue with Sheikh Abdullah the state chief minister despite his claim was not consulted but simply asked to quit the office. 

Coming to the recent past; the then chief executive of the state had no role in the engagement of a faction of the Hurriyat Conference with the NDA and UPA governments. These engagements were part of the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan, and it was a tacit recognition of people of Kashmir as the real stakeholders.   

Related Stories

No stories found.
Greater Kashmir