Recently there has been talk of demilitarisation and self-governance. If demilitarisation means total withdrawal of security forces from the entire state, then that may seem like a utopian dream considering the permanent defence establishments on both sides of the divide. To be realistic one should aim at the restoration of genuine civil authority to ensure “Good Governance” which may be possible provided the two governments are sincere. The draconian legislations giving unbridled powers to the security forces need to be withdrawn as a first step. Secondly, the troops must go back to barracks. All civilian areas must be cleared of security forces. The extra-judicial Special Operations Group of the Police and similar other organisations and outfits operated by various agencies must be disbanded. It should not be difficult for the local Police after being purged of certain elements of vested interests, to maintain law and order if they decide to do so or rather if they are allowed to do so on their own. We have over a hundred thousand of these. But there is one catch! The “Governance” to be genuine as well as good has to be effected through an honest Administration run by the locals and not through outside officers who consider themselves to be the members of a “Colonial set up” and through an elected Governor who does not function at the bidding of the “Dilli Durbar”. Here it may be pertinent to examine the present Administrative set up in the state.

The British Colonists who entered India in the garb of East India Company after finally annexing it to their Empire, created a federal administrative service called ICS, (Indian Civil Service) to ensure running of their writ throughout the length and breadth of the country. This was an imperial service loyal to the British Crown created to keep the colony under control as part of the Empire. After the departure of the British, the “Indian Ruling Elite” instead of disbanding this vestige of imperialism and colonialism converted it into IAS, (Indian Administrative Service) with almost the same purpose and functions. Earlier they were loyal and answerable to the British Crown in England and now they are loyal and reporting to “Dilli Durbar”. The new Government did not stop there but created a number of internal and external central services, such as IPS, (Indian Police Service), IFS, (Indian Forest Service), IRS, (Indian Revenue Service), IAAS, (Indian Accounts and Audit Service), IPS, (Indian Postal Service), and IFS, (Indian Foreign Service).

It is a pity that after independence India opted for the British Model of Governance. Had the rulers taken a lesson from the history, they would have realised that the Presidential system would have been a better choice. India had been ruled for ages by the Kings and Queens who were considered to be divine representatives on this Earth. The masses especially in the rural areas would have considered an elected President as a King or Queen which in fact happened in case of Nehru dynasty when majority of people worshipped Indra Gandhi as a “Queen” (Rani). Instead of Union of India, it would have been better to have a United States of India with a complete federal structure. India should have been a group of fully autonomous States ruled by elected Governors with an elected President at Delhi. This would have reflected the India’s unity in diversity in the real sense. However, the unitary system which was adopted for ruling the country created a feeling of the States being ruled as colonies by the “Political Elite” in Delhi. This feeling is far more pronounced in the Muslim majority State of Jammu & Kashmir where people have lacked opportunities as well as have been reluctant to join these Central Services unlike other States. This has resulted in total imbalance in the ratio of local to outside officers manning important administrative and other positions in different services. The ratio is supposed to be 30% to 70% but in actual practice it is even less than that. Normally it should have been 50:50 if it was essential to have both the state as well as central services. The state did create a local level administrative service, KAS, (Kashmir Administrative Service). However, all the important posts in different wings of the State Administration in the Civil Secretariat as well as in the field are encadered in the J & K Cadre of the Indian Administrative and other Central Services. The officers of Kashmir’s local services come up to middle rung posts only. The Government prefers to keep key positions vacant rather than assign these to middle rung local officers. The promotion and induction into central services from the state services is so slow, irregular, unbalanced, erratic, and sometimes ad hoc that there are always more directly recruited officers than the local promotees. This results in key positions most of the time going to outside state officers. The Chief Secretary, the Director General Police, most of the administrative secretaries, the major heads of department, senior police and civil administration officers in provinces, districts and so on are most of the time from outside the state. No doubt the direct recruits to the services though from outside the state are sometimes officers of exceptional talent and are also in a number of cases very progressive and upright. Unfortunately, the most upright, honest, intelligent, and talented officers from this cadre were never allowed an undisturbed stay in the state. Most of the time these were sent on central deputation as and when they dared to oppose the doings of the tainted politicians. But local officers if given a chance could prove equally good. It was only during the period of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah as the State Chief Minister from 1975 to 1982 that local officers got some key positions. It is said that Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah in the last phase of his life was very sad and felt very much guilty about the fate of Kashmiris. He tried his best to alleviate their position and made some efforts to take a few steps to safeguard their future interests. The introduction of Resettlement Bill in the state legislature which allows Kashmiris (who had earlier migrated outside country) to return here is one such step. Even though the Bill ultimately got passed as an Act, it still remains in limbo (through some Public Interest Litigation) because of the attitude of Central Government who dread the return of old Kashmiris. The other step was the boosting of the local administrative services which allowed a large number of Kashmiri Officers to get posted to key positions. The outside Officers nick named this group as “Kashmir Syndicate”. In turn they were called the “Delhi Caucus” or the “IAS Maha Sabah”. During this period Kashmiris did have some control over the State Administration. However, the subsequent rulers diluted this control and the new “East India Company” again became effective. In 1990 there was such a vacuum of local officers that the Government of India had no choice but to call in the Security Forces to handle the situation of turmoil. Even at the present moment almost all key positions in all spheres of administration except a few, are manned by non-Kashmiri as well as non-Muslim officers thereby making it a totally colonial or imperial set up working at the bidding of “Dilli Durbar”. Till mid fifties when the State Constitution still had some sanctity, the Office of Sadr-i-Riyast was a titular position of a state-subject kept alive to allow the heirs of the monarchical era to continue their stay in Kashmir. However, after its conversion into the Office of the Governor, it became similar to the seat of the British Viceroy of old days; only the British Crown got replaced by “Dilli Durbar”. In the past there used to be some prominent scholars and intellectuals posted as Governors such as Bhagwan Sahay, L K Jha, B K Nehru but subsequently after the turmoil of 1990 mostly retired Army Generals or Intelligence Officers have been given this assignment by the rulers in Delhi. If Kashmiris are to be restored their “Self-respect and dignity”, the set up has to change. This will involve the return of the outside officers to their home States or Delhi and posting of local officers on all key positions. Governor may also have to be elected and must be an intellectual or an upright politician of repute (These days this is a rare commodity!). However, the big question would be whether Delhi would have the courage to go thus far? Also, will they trust such an arrangement? There is no indication like that. On the contrary, Delhi seems to be resigned to the ground reality of total alienation and has taken a deliberate decision that Kashmir has to be kept regardless of Kashmiris no matter what the cost internally or globally. Within these parameters they are trying to bring local people on their side internally by repeatedly announcing off and on various economic packages while at the same time they are projecting externally through various diplomatic moves a “ Conciliatory Gentleman’s Face” ready for accommodation with the local people. It is a typical carrot and stick approach which was indulged in by the erstwhile “East India Company”. However, in the end even after a very long stay of 200 years the British had to pack their bags and go home. But they did give many things to India. The Modern Education, a New Capital (Luytens Delhi), India Gate, President’s House, the Gateway of India, and a host of other landmarks. What has Kashmir got? A total mess in everything. Tremendous human as well as material loss. Distorted culture and loss of heritage. Pill boxes and bunkers every where. And over and above everything, a very uncertain future! In these conditions it would be a commendable job to get “Good Governance” as a first step towards the resolution of this vexed problem. Self-Governance in the true sense seems a distant dream difficult to be achieved in the near future but may be possible if we cross the first stage. Will it ever be possible to effect these changes in practice? That is a million dollar question!