Sham Lal, the Health Minister in Omar Abdullah’s cabinet has created quite a stir by proposing to divide J & K State into three parts. While as a number of mainstream leaders both in the state and at the centre and a few pro-Azadi leaders have distanced themselves from these controversial utterances, yet some leaders in Kashmir like Sajjad Lone, have welcomed it. In fact, Sajjad Lone has gone to the extent of saying that we should not take geographical division to be sacrosanct. These have been altered in the past and can also be altered now if such a need arises! The utterances have generated a debate. It is alleged that these proposals were made to neutralize BJP and RSS who have already been advocating separation of the valley from Jammu.

It is reported that both the Congress High Command and the State Chief Minister have asked the minister to explain the reasons for these controversial remarks. Apparently, the minister seems to have made the remarks to highlight the so called discrimination against Jammu and Ladakh. Well, it is not the first proposal of its kind which has been made for solving the decades old dispute by dividing the state. Division of the state had even been suggested by a UN nominee Owen Dixon in early years of the dispute. It was known as the “Dixon Plan”. He had proposed to make valley a buffer state between the two antagonistic neighbours. There are two aspects to this controversial proposal.

First is its efficacy and practicality in the present context. The second is its real origin and the motive of the originators. There is no doubt that the present state of Jammu & Kashmir is an artificially created entity. Ladakh was annexed to Dogra Kingdom by General Zorawar Singh and Kashmir Valley was purchased by Maharaja Gulab Singh from the British. Thus the unity of the state did not happen by the free choice of the individual units. It was a colonial creation. The moot point is whether this unity would have survived if the state had got total independence in 1947? Though the struggle for basic rights launched in 1931 was by the Muslims only, it became nationalistic in colour in 1938 by the conversion of Muslim Conference into National Conference.

However, there was another divide in 1947 when the Muslim majority J&K got annexed to the Indian Union through Hindu Maharaja’s accession with one part being taken over by Pakistan by force. Right from that moment there was a divide among the constituents even though they outwardly manifested a united secular and nationalistic front. Jammu people were sore because after 100 years it would be the valley ruling over them and that too in an autonomous region. Ladakhis were till that time in total backwardness and were truly discriminated. They were considered some sort of primitive people. They were also spiritually more aligned with Lahasa in Tibet than to any other place on this side. Possibly there may have been more problems between the three regions from the very start if J & K had been declared an Independent state in 1947 itself?

These over 60 years of forced marriage have in fact brought these regions more close to each other and have made these inter-dependent. The valley has become totally dependent on outside resources to survive and Jammu is the main source for these even though these may be coming from all over the country. Similarly, Ladakh cannot survive without supplies being continuously made available through the valley. The Manali link so far is not very dependable. It may be a good alternative once the tunnels across the high passes are made through. In any case, the three regions have to be together now for survival. At present the economic considerations weigh more than the political ones as is evident from the European Union set up. The same situation is going to develop in the sub-continent after sometime.

The region will survive only once the individual countries build an economic bond. In the alternative, the number of teeming millions is going to grow geometrically. Even if we accept that the problem for last few decades has been only in the valley and its peripheral districts which area was actually the Kingdom of Kashmir since ancient times, yet the current appendages of Ladakh and Jammu will be difficult to separate. The only viable solution would be possible with the consent of both the constituents. Also, unless there is an Indo-Pak agreement and also blessing of China, Kashmir will continue to fester for one or the other reason. It will remain a playfield of big powers. Thus simple separation of the three regions if carried out by the Indian Government will not solve the problem. For a stable and lasting solution all the concerned parties have to come up with a consensus. That takes care of the practicability of the Sham Lal formula.

Now, we come to the real motive in presenting this controversial formula. Has it come out just off the cuff or there is something more to it? No doubt there has been unusual turmoil in the valley for last three years or so. It has been happening on one pretext or the other. First it was Amarnath land row, and then Shopian rape and murder case and the fake encounters stirred it. Now, it has been the killing of innocent civilians in peaceful protests brutally suppressed by the authorities. The major factor for the alienation has been excessive militarization of Kashmir. It was alright during the peak of militancy when encounters were quite frequent and large numbers of militants were roaming in all places. However, once the militant level was brought down to just few hundred, the security set up should have been eased. On the contrary, it has been gradually increased as dealing with civil unrest is being done almost on the same lines as dealing with militants.

Top security officials are calling the unarmed civilian unrest as agitational terrorism. They do not want to let go of the control over the civilians. There is now a general feeling that it is only the Kashmir valley which is a trouble spot. For strategic reasons some people may be advocating separation of the valley so as to deal with it exclusively without creating problem for other areas. It is almost the logic which Jagmohan is supposed to have followed in evicting Pandits enmasse temporarily from Kashmir. That did not enable him to wipe out Kashmiri militants and bring back the Pandits. There does not seem any chance of Pandits coming back soon. Similarly, separating Kashmir for strategic reasons to deal with the unrest in a better manner may ultimately end in its total separation! There may be people in India genuinely feeling that the intractable problem of Kashmir is pulling everything down and it may be better to get rid of it once and for all! What is the real motive for floating these ideas is a million dollar question. Nevertheless, it is sure that there is something more to the idea than meets the eye. Let us wait and watch how the debate on the controversy unfolds!