28 Oct 2018: UPSC Exam Comprehensive News Analysis

Note to Students:

This editorial coverage is takes into account the recent issue of local body elections in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Students are advised to go through this article as it has a relevance from the perspective of the GS-2 Paper (Polity and Governance).

• Here we have suitably signposted the Editorial Analysis into multiple headings.

• “Larger Background”: This particular section talks about the broader background of the issue, taking into consideration specific points that may have been featured in previous editions of The Hindu. The thought process behind including this section is to give a ‘storyline’ approach to an aspirant when he/she goes through this topic.

• “Editorial Analysis”: This particular section gives an insight towards the specific points covered in the specific editorial that is the subject of our study.

• “The Way Forward/Concluding Remarks”: This sections gives aspirants concluding points that are taken from the article in question as well as some forwarding looking points taken from other articles, as and when required.

The important aspect to note here is that the issue being discussed in the news assumes priority over just the article.

Larger Background:

• • The two main regional parties, the National Conference and the Peoples Democratic Party had given the call for a boycott to the local body elections in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

• Their immediate protest was over the legal challenge in the Supreme Court to Article 35(A) of the Constitution that accords special powers to the Jammu and Kashmir legislature to decide who are the “permanent residents” of the State and on whom special rights and privileges can be conferred.

• Thus, it is important for students to have a background on what Article 35A of the Indian Constitution is about.  

A Note on Article 35A

• The Article 35A was inserted in the Indian Constitution by the Presidential Order of 1954. The Article 35A yields special rights and immunities to the permanent residents of the Jammu and Kashmir from the rest of Indian citizen.
• In the light of this article a non-permanent resident of Jammu and Kashmir cannot enjoy any Government facilities.
• Article 35A is a provision incorporated in the Constitution giving the Jammu and Kashmir Legislature complete freedom to decide who all are ‘permanent residents’ of the State and confer on them special rights and privileges in public sector jobs, acquisition of property in the State, scholarships and other public aid and welfare.
• The provision mandates that no act of the legislature coming under it can be challenged for violating the Constitution or any other law of the land.

How was Article 35A incorporated?

• Article 35A was incorporated into the Constitution in 1954 by an order of the then President Rajendra Prasad on the advice of the Jawaharlal Nehru Cabinet. The controversial Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of 1954 followed the 1952 Delhi Agreement entered into between Nehru and the then Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Sheikh Abdullah, which extended Indian citizenship to the ‘State subjects’ of Jammu and Kashmir.
• The Presidential Order was issued under Article 370 (1) (d) of the Constitution. This provision allows the President to make certain “exceptions and modifications” to the Constitution for the benefit of ‘State subjects’ of Jammu and Kashmir.
• Thus, Article 35A was added to the Constitution as a testimony of the special consideration the Indian government accorded to the ‘permanent residents’ of Jammu and Kashmir.

A Look at the Elections:

There has been a poor turnout in the Kashmir valley for local polls.

• • Just over a third of the electorate (35.1% provisionally) turned out to vote in the four-phase urban local body elections
  • Experts believe that this is a wake-up call to the Union government.
  • It is important to note that the turnout was not expected to be high.
  • The two main regional parties, the National Conference and the Peoples Democratic Party had given the call for a boycott.  

• Their immediate protest was over the legal challenge in the Supreme Court to Article 35(A) of the Constitution that accords special powers to the Jammu and Kashmir legislature to decide who are the “permanent residents” of the State and on whom special rights and privileges can be conferred.

• • Given the boycott by these two parties and others, there was little political mobilisation in the Valley.

• However, in Jammu, where both the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Congress have a strong base and where issues such as Article 35(A) don’t have as much resonance, there was greater participation.

• It is important to note that the absence of any viable political competition in the local body polls in the Valley will only undermine the institutions and the victors.
• Unfortunately, with the collapse of the PDP-BJP coalition government in June this year, the absence of Kashmiri parties from the fray could heighten alienation at the street level.

A Deeper Insight:

• Despite being local body polls, the negligible public participation in them is significant, especially since only four years ago, the State had witnessed the highest voter turnout in 27 years.
• Last week saw only 35.1% turnout for the entire State, with Kashmiri participation dropping to a low single-digit percentage.
• Some experts have blamed this result on pressure from militants.
• However, it is worth noting that although militants often try to violently disrupt State elections, the boycott has rarely been as successful as this time.
• Certain experts have maintained that we must recognise that this boycott was essentially a democratic expression of the people who are frustrated not just by the government but by the entire system. They further assert that to ignore their voice is almost certainly going to lead to disastrous consequences for the State’s already-deteriorating security situation.

Delaying the Election?

• Further, it is important to note that many experts have argued that the solution would have been to delay the elections.
• However, this would have also meant denying the people of Jammu their democratic rights as they did want the elections and have participated in them enthusiastically.
• Some experts believe that instead of solely focussing on stabilising the situation, the administration at the Centre also tried to derive maximum political gains from the situation.

The Dilemma the Centre Faces:

• • The dilemma that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is facing has been experienced by his predecessors as well.
  • Critics believe that as the head of the government, they felt it necessary to maintain stability in the State. However, as leaders of large national parties, they also saw Jammu and Kashmir as a fertile political ground which could be used to expand the bases of their parties, even if it was at the cost of stability in the State. They further assert that the trade-off between these two impulses has been always difficult to negotiate.
  • It is important to point out that there is nothing inherently wrong with any national party pursuing political gains within Jammu and Kashmir as they do in any other State.

• Some people even argue that it is actually preferable if a sensitive State such as Jammu and Kashmir is ruled by a reliable national party than by regional actors.

Tracing the Roots of the Issue:

• Experts believe that even the initial birth of the Kashmir insurgency in the late 1980s can be traced back to Indira Gandhi’s decision to adopt a maximalist approach.
• For example: In 1975, Mrs. Gandhi had established a historic accord with Sheikh Abdullah, making Kashmir’s accession to India final.
  Then in a statesman-like move, Indira Gandhi had asked the Congress Chief Minister in the State to step down for Abdullah to assume the position in a gesture of solidarity.
• However, within two years, this desire to put national interest first had evaporated. Defeated in the 1977 general election, Mrs. Gandhi became desperate to regain political ground wherever she could find, which included Jammu and Kashmir.

Situation Post 1970’s:

• The situation changed from the late 1970s. From the late 1970s, the Congress in the State began a steady campaign against the Abdullah government, accusing it of maladministration and corruption.
• This long-running feud weakened the legitimacy of both parties and as a consequence, created the space for extremism to grow.
• Inspired by the 1979 Iranian revolution, Kashmiri fundamentalists had begun mobilising and the Abdullah-Congress fight allowed them to gain political traction.

Situation in the 1980’s:

• By the early 1980s, extremists in State politics were becoming prominent enough that even the Central Intelligence Agency took notice.
• Cognisant of this fact, experts believe that Mrs. Gandhi should have taken a conciliatory approach with Abdullah.
• Instead, she decided that emerging security risks made it all the more important to politically replace him with a Congress government.
• For the next few years, the Congress continued to attack the Abdullah government, including in 1984, engineering a coup against Farooq Abdullah, Sheikh’s successor.
• However, by the mid-1980s, both sides had been discredited. The Congress was seen as abusing its power for political gains; Abdullah was seen as a weak leader because of his failed attempt to walk the tight-rope between fighting the government of India and still remaining pro-India.
• The vacuum thus created was filled by extremist groups.
• The Muslim United Front, an alliance of Islamic right-wing parties, expanded its vote share from a mere 6.4% in 1983 to 32% in 1987, in the Valley. Finally recognising this reality, in 1986 Rajiv Gandhi reached another accord with Abdullah which made both parties allies. However, by now it was too late. From a security standpoint it was necessary for the alliance to retain hold of the State; but in its weakened state, neither Abdullah nor the Congress could be sure that they would win the elections.

The Infamous 1987 State Elections:

• The infamous 1987 State elections, were mired in allegations of widespread poll-rigging. Those who felt that the Abdullah-Congress alliance had “robbed” the elections became the first recruits of the incipient insurgency.
• In an effort towards trying to reach for maximum goals, which was security gains and political mileage, the Congress ended up losing both.
• Currently, the ruling party at the Centre, the BJP, finds itself in a similar position, where its political strategy is eroding the long-term security of the State.
• Critics believe that, what compounds matters is that, unlike the Congress in the 1980s, the BJP is actually making political gains. They point out that they must desist from this temptation.
• Sacrificing its short-term political gains, the BJP should look towards the long-term stability of the State by moderating its own political appetite.

Editorial Analysis:

Experts believe that the situation in Kashmir is volatile and drifting into a negative sphere on two counts. These are:

1. rising violence and
2. the shrinking space of regional mainstream parties after the four-phase urban local bodies elections on October 16.

• It is further believed that the spiral of violence showed no sign of let-up even after Governor Satya Pal Malik was sworn in as the new head of the State on August 23, 2018.  
• Experts add that there are many markers which the Governor has so far failed to stop the situation from deteriorating and ensure that all alienated sections, especially the Hurriyat, make a positive move.
• Experts point out that there are more worrying trends for security agencies.
• Srinagar, declared a militancy-free zone once, saw the return of house-to-house operations by security forces.
• Four militants and a civilian were killed in a fortnight of heavy gunfights.
• Further, the fear of large-scale street protests during and after the encounters forced the authorities to close all educational institutions and cancel examinations.

Reasons attributed towards heightened violence:

• • Some experts believe that the Centre’s decision to hold urban local bodies elections in October acted as a force multiplier for violence.
  • They assert that even the mainstream regional parties, National Conference (NC) and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), decided to boycott these polls, given the “anxiety and alienation” in Kashmir over a number of issues, including the questioning of special status in the Supreme Court.
  • It is important to also note that the regional parties described the civic bodies polls as “an imposition by the Centre.”

• It is also important to note that it’s for the first time that urban local bodies polls were held with no regional party fielding any candidate. The new Governor failed to convince the parties to join the fray. Instead, he ticked them off, saying their “boycott was posturing for Assembly elections.”

Concluding Remarks:

• • In conclusion, the poll results were disappointing and far below expectations.

• From over 80% polling in the panchayat elections in 2011, the voter turnout came down to 35.1% in the entire State, while the Kashmir Valley and Srinagar saw 5% turnout, even lower than in 1996 when militancy was at its peak.

• The reversal is discouraging as voter turnouts had increased significantly in this decade, growing ever since the mid-1990s.

• Some experts also believe that the winning of the BJP candidates at 35 wards in the boycott-hit and volatile south Kashmir has only added to people’s anxiety.

• It is important to note that even between periods of intense protests, Assembly and parliamentary elections saw increased turnouts despite boycott calls by separatist groups.
• This indicated a willing acceptance of the need to engage in electoral democracy to address civic concerns even if there were substantive differences and anger with the State and Central governments over issues such as security, human rights violations and the status of J&K.
• However, the inability of the PDP-BJP government to come up with a coherent response to the unrest and protests that raged in 2016-17, and the subsequent imposition of Governor’s Rule have only heightened matters.
• Further, experts believe that the work of the Centre’s interlocutor, Dineshwar Sharma, to carry forward a dialogue with various groups and individuals in the State has also not been enough to arrest misgivings in the Valley.
• Finally, it has been suggested that the Centre must see the lack of participation in the polls in the Valley as a serious sign of alienation among the people and double down on ways to forge greater engagement.
• Also, the decision to hold the civic polls has cast a shadow on upcoming elections in the State, including the panchayat polls to be held in November.
• Finally, the State is also awaiting Assembly elections after the PDP-BJP government fell in August this year. Both the NC and the PDP are yet to show any interest in these polls. It strengthens the separatists’ argument that boycott remains the only option for all parties till resolution of the Kashmir issue.

1. Banni’s bane

Question 1. Which of the following ministries organises the International Buddhist Conclave 
biennially?

See

Question 2. Which of the following monumental locations have been accorded with Swacchh 
Iconic Place Tag?

See

Question 3. Consider the following the statement is regarding Financial Action task Force:

See

1. The farm loan waiver undermines honest credit culture and discipline. It endangers moral hazard and entails transfer from tax payers. Hence alternative to blanket waivers need to be explored and adapted. Critically examine the statement. (15 Marks; Max – 250 words)
2. The friendship between India and Japan has a long history rooted in spiritual affinity and strong cultural and civilizational ties. Write a note on the contemporary India – Japan relations.

Also, check previous Daily News Analysis

Enroll for India’s Largest All-India Test Series