<p>With the resumption of the Indo-Pakistan dialogue, the Centre is expected to reveal its political initiative for Jammu and Kashmir. The Union government should refrain from reducing the J&K “problem” to the issue of insurgency/freedom struggle in Kashmir and managing things from New Delhi. Unlike insurgency, which needs direct Central involvement, many of the other crucial political problems in the vexed state require a dialogue between the regions of the state.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Discussions about J&K in the mainland often fail to appreciate the differences between the regions of the state – Kashmir, Jammu, and Ladakh. Kashmir consists of the Jhelum Valley and the adjoining hills. Kashmiri-speaking Sunnis constitute majority in Kashmir, with the rest being Kashmiri-speaking Shias and pastoral tribes that speak languages closer to Hindi than Kashmiri. The pastoral tribes relocate to Jammu during winters. Kashmir accounts for about 55 and 16 per cent of the population (as per the 2011 Census) and area of the state, respectively. <br /><br />Kashmir’s area will increase marginally if we include the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Jammu consists of Dogri-speaking plains adjoining Punjab and Pahari/Kishtwari/Bhadarwahi/Gujari speaking hills adjoining Kashmir and Ladakh. Muslim population increases in Jammu as we move away from the plains. Jammu contains about 43 per cent of the population and 26 per cent of the area of the state. <br /><br />Ladakh consists of Ladakhi-speaking Buddhist-majority Leh and Balti-speaking Shia-majority Kargil. Ladakh that contains about 58 per cent of the area of the state has been marginal to the state’s politics as it accounts for merely two per cent of the population.<br /><br />The prolonged political impasse in Kashmir has accentuated intra-state divisions as Jammu and Ladakh do not share the former’s vision for autonomy/ independence. However, given the internal diversity of the regions, it would be inappropriate to view their mutual differences over power-sharing – the delimitation of assembly constituencies and the creation of new districts, for instance – solely through the lens of religious demography.<br /><br />Jammu complains that despite having a population “comparable” to Kashmir and an area much larger than that of Kashmir, it has fewer constituencies and districts than it deserves. In 1961, there were three districts in Kashmir and five in Jammu, while the entire Ladakh region was administered as one district. In 1968, Rajouri was carved out of Poonch district of Jammu. <br /><br />In 1979, three new districts were created in Kashmir and one in Ladakh, but none in Jammu. Thus, Kashmir was brought on par with Jammu in terms of the number of districts. Three decades later, when new districts were created in 2006-07, the state government maintained parity between Kashmir and Jammu by creating four new districts in both of these regions. <br /><br />However, Kashmir’s advantage vis-a-vis Jammu in terms of the number of electoral constituencies reduced only marginally. In the 1962 election, there were two Assembly constituencies in Ladakh, 42 in Kashmir, and 31 in Jammu. An additional constituency was allotted to Jammu in the 1977 election that raised the strength of the assembly to 76. The next round of delimitation, which has governed elections since 1996, raised the strength of the assembly from 76 to 87. Of the 11 new constituencies, two were given to Ladakh, five to Jammu, and four to Kashmir.<br /><br />Electorate size<br />Ladakh’s constituencies were commensurate with the size of its electorate (registered voters) and population until the late 1980s and later it had more constituencies than warranted by the size of its electorate. This disproportion is justified on account of Ladakh’s remote and difficult terrain and large territory. <br /><br />The constituencies allotted to Jammu in the state assembly have always been less than its share of electorate and population, except in 1977 when its constituencies were comparable to its share of electorate and in 2011 when its constituencies were comparable to its population share (even in 2011, Jammu’s share of constituencies was less than its share of above 18 years population).<br /><br />The average size of constituencies is larger in Jammu than in Kashmir. The presence of internally displaced/migrant Kashmiris, who continue to be registered as voters in Kashmir, migrants from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, and migrants from West Pakistan, who have been denied full voting rights, in Jammu accentuates the disproportion between the actual and desirable allocation of constituencies.<br /><br />Jammu, therefore, believes that it faces structural discrimination as Kashmir enjoys a contrived and permanent electoral majority shielded by Article 370 that exempts the state from regular delimitation of constituencies. As a result, for instance, the chief minister has always been a Kashmiri, with the exception of Ghulam Nabi Azad (if and how Kashmir’s advantage has benefited the common Kashmiri is a debate for another day). <br /><br />The anxiety in Kashmir over the emergence of the BJP as the largest party of the state by vote share is essentially a co-ncern about the consequences of the potential political consolidation of Jammu and Ladakh under a party that does not depend on Kashmiri vote.<br /><br /> Kashmir can possibly maintain status quo by exploiting the religious divisions within Ladakh and Jammu, but that will accentuate and communalise the regional divisions.<br />The Centre’s mediation, assuming it can communicate with the people bypassing the Abdullah and Mufti dynasties, the intelligence agencies and the armed forces, cannot substitute for a direct dialogue among the regions. The absence of organisations, including political parties, which can credibly appeal to people in all three regions has meant the lack of a platform for inter-regional dialogue. Under these circumstances, the responsibility for building such a platform lies with Kashmir which both enjoys a disproportionate share of power and has successfully used Art 370 to foreclose the possibility of a federally-mediated redistribution of power.<br /><br />(The writer teaches at Azim Premji University, Bengaluru)</p>
<p>With the resumption of the Indo-Pakistan dialogue, the Centre is expected to reveal its political initiative for Jammu and Kashmir. The Union government should refrain from reducing the J&K “problem” to the issue of insurgency/freedom struggle in Kashmir and managing things from New Delhi. Unlike insurgency, which needs direct Central involvement, many of the other crucial political problems in the vexed state require a dialogue between the regions of the state.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Discussions about J&K in the mainland often fail to appreciate the differences between the regions of the state – Kashmir, Jammu, and Ladakh. Kashmir consists of the Jhelum Valley and the adjoining hills. Kashmiri-speaking Sunnis constitute majority in Kashmir, with the rest being Kashmiri-speaking Shias and pastoral tribes that speak languages closer to Hindi than Kashmiri. The pastoral tribes relocate to Jammu during winters. Kashmir accounts for about 55 and 16 per cent of the population (as per the 2011 Census) and area of the state, respectively. <br /><br />Kashmir’s area will increase marginally if we include the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Jammu consists of Dogri-speaking plains adjoining Punjab and Pahari/Kishtwari/Bhadarwahi/Gujari speaking hills adjoining Kashmir and Ladakh. Muslim population increases in Jammu as we move away from the plains. Jammu contains about 43 per cent of the population and 26 per cent of the area of the state. <br /><br />Ladakh consists of Ladakhi-speaking Buddhist-majority Leh and Balti-speaking Shia-majority Kargil. Ladakh that contains about 58 per cent of the area of the state has been marginal to the state’s politics as it accounts for merely two per cent of the population.<br /><br />The prolonged political impasse in Kashmir has accentuated intra-state divisions as Jammu and Ladakh do not share the former’s vision for autonomy/ independence. However, given the internal diversity of the regions, it would be inappropriate to view their mutual differences over power-sharing – the delimitation of assembly constituencies and the creation of new districts, for instance – solely through the lens of religious demography.<br /><br />Jammu complains that despite having a population “comparable” to Kashmir and an area much larger than that of Kashmir, it has fewer constituencies and districts than it deserves. In 1961, there were three districts in Kashmir and five in Jammu, while the entire Ladakh region was administered as one district. In 1968, Rajouri was carved out of Poonch district of Jammu. <br /><br />In 1979, three new districts were created in Kashmir and one in Ladakh, but none in Jammu. Thus, Kashmir was brought on par with Jammu in terms of the number of districts. Three decades later, when new districts were created in 2006-07, the state government maintained parity between Kashmir and Jammu by creating four new districts in both of these regions. <br /><br />However, Kashmir’s advantage vis-a-vis Jammu in terms of the number of electoral constituencies reduced only marginally. In the 1962 election, there were two Assembly constituencies in Ladakh, 42 in Kashmir, and 31 in Jammu. An additional constituency was allotted to Jammu in the 1977 election that raised the strength of the assembly to 76. The next round of delimitation, which has governed elections since 1996, raised the strength of the assembly from 76 to 87. Of the 11 new constituencies, two were given to Ladakh, five to Jammu, and four to Kashmir.<br /><br />Electorate size<br />Ladakh’s constituencies were commensurate with the size of its electorate (registered voters) and population until the late 1980s and later it had more constituencies than warranted by the size of its electorate. This disproportion is justified on account of Ladakh’s remote and difficult terrain and large territory. <br /><br />The constituencies allotted to Jammu in the state assembly have always been less than its share of electorate and population, except in 1977 when its constituencies were comparable to its share of electorate and in 2011 when its constituencies were comparable to its population share (even in 2011, Jammu’s share of constituencies was less than its share of above 18 years population).<br /><br />The average size of constituencies is larger in Jammu than in Kashmir. The presence of internally displaced/migrant Kashmiris, who continue to be registered as voters in Kashmir, migrants from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, and migrants from West Pakistan, who have been denied full voting rights, in Jammu accentuates the disproportion between the actual and desirable allocation of constituencies.<br /><br />Jammu, therefore, believes that it faces structural discrimination as Kashmir enjoys a contrived and permanent electoral majority shielded by Article 370 that exempts the state from regular delimitation of constituencies. As a result, for instance, the chief minister has always been a Kashmiri, with the exception of Ghulam Nabi Azad (if and how Kashmir’s advantage has benefited the common Kashmiri is a debate for another day). <br /><br />The anxiety in Kashmir over the emergence of the BJP as the largest party of the state by vote share is essentially a co-ncern about the consequences of the potential political consolidation of Jammu and Ladakh under a party that does not depend on Kashmiri vote.<br /><br /> Kashmir can possibly maintain status quo by exploiting the religious divisions within Ladakh and Jammu, but that will accentuate and communalise the regional divisions.<br />The Centre’s mediation, assuming it can communicate with the people bypassing the Abdullah and Mufti dynasties, the intelligence agencies and the armed forces, cannot substitute for a direct dialogue among the regions. The absence of organisations, including political parties, which can credibly appeal to people in all three regions has meant the lack of a platform for inter-regional dialogue. Under these circumstances, the responsibility for building such a platform lies with Kashmir which both enjoys a disproportionate share of power and has successfully used Art 370 to foreclose the possibility of a federally-mediated redistribution of power.<br /><br />(The writer teaches at Azim Premji University, Bengaluru)</p>