On the morning of Monday, the widespread impression among those in the know was that a deal for the formation of a coalition government in Jammu and Kashmir had been “nearly sealed” between the Bharatiya Janata Party that rules the country and the Kashmir-based People’s Democratic Party that emerged as the single largest party in the hung Assembly. The BJP, which had never before had much of a presence in the state legislature, is the second largest party this time around, with 25 members, only three less than the PDP’s 28.
Together, they have 53 seats in a total of 87, and thus a comfortable majority. BJP president Amit Shah’s invitation to his party’s “core group” in J&K to meet him in Delhi on Monday strengthened the prevailing belief. At the end of the day, however, it became clear that the expectation was too rosy, and that it would take more time and great effort to clinch an agreement. So far, top leaders of the two parties have had only “informal contacts” that haven’t been productive enough. Formal and “structured” discussions are beginning now.
Compulsions on both sides to join hands are strong. The BJP, after its highly impressive victory in the Lok Sabha poll, has won control of several states, such as Maharashtra, Haryana and Jharkhand where Assembly elections were held. It had hoped to win in J&K, too, but its target of 44+ seats was missed. Yet the BJP wants to be a partner in the state government, if not also to head it.
Indeed, on the strength of having won the highest percentage of votes in the state it did stake claim on the office of chief minister but the patron of the PDP, Mufti Muhammad Sayeed, would have nothing of it. He insisted on being chief minister for the entire six-year tenure of the Assembly, offering the BJP the office of deputy chief minister. As far as can be ascertained, the BJP has conceded Mr Sayeed’s demand in essence. But many leaders of the saffron party are insisting that the office of chief minister should be “rotational”, Mufti sahib holding it for the first three years and then yielding it to a BJP nominee.
For his part, Mr Sayeed knows that he does not become chief minister now, he never would. He had followed the rotational principle in the coalition with the Congress during the period 2002-2008, but doesn’t want to repeat this “mistake”. He is also fully conscious that it would be very difficult to run the government in the state if his ministry is not on the same side as the government in New Delhi. Kashmir’s need for Central funds remains enormous. If Mufti sahib ditches the BJP and cobbles an alternative coalition, he cannot expect the Modi government to be generous.
On the other hand, the BJP’s very thought to an option of forming a coalition with the ousted chief minister Omar Abdullah’s National Conference and some others, led to a revolt among the NC’s 15 MLAs. It is also noteworthy that there is a division of opinion within the PDP also. A senior leader of the party, Muzaffar Hussain Baig, says that the only logical course is to have a coalition with the BJP while Mr Sayeed’s daughter, Mehbooba, who is also the party’s working president, insists that the BJP must accept her party’s terms and conditions. No one is listening to the Congress Party’s cry for a “secular alliance”.
It is only fair to admit that there are several deep-seated and long-standing problems that the coalition-builders have to face in India’s only Muslim-majority state. It is divided into three different regions: Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh. The Hindu-majority Jammu has bitter rivalry with the Kashmir Valley which it complains has acquired hegemony over the whole state because of having 46 seats out of 87, and treats Jammu shabbily. There are, therefore, demands for fresh delimitation of constituencies and for regional councils with sufficient autonomy. This problem is aggravated by the fact that all the 25 MLAs belonging to the BJP were elected from Jammu. Its candidates in Kashmir and Ladakh had bitten dust. By the same token, 26 of the PDP MLAs were elected from the Kashmir Valley, and only two from Jammu.
Consequently, both sides are under pressure from their followers to hold fast to positions so contradictory as to be virtually irreconcilable. For instance, amidst the massive and almost constant Pakistani firings across international border in Jammu area resumption of talks with Pakistan is something the PDP wants to be included in the common minimum programme of the
proposed coalition.
Ms Mehbooba Mufti has suggested in her public speeches that both sides should commit themselves to Atal Behari Vajpayee’s policy on Pakistan. The rejoinder from the BJP side is that after the terrorist attack on Parliament, Atalji had had no talks with Pakistan for three years. The dialogue was resumed only after Pervez Musharraf, the then military ruler in Islamabad, had first declared a ceasefire across the Line of Control in November 2003 and signed an assurance in January 2004 that the territory under Pakistan’s control would not be allowed to be used against India. To expect such an India-Pakistan equation in the near future would be a classic case of the triumph of hope over experience. The approach towards separatists is also likely to be divisive. The other day a moderate Hurriyat leader, Abdul Ghani Bhat, met the Mufti and found it necessary to appeal to people, especially to BJP’s followers, to “make nothing of this”. Yet, the reaction of local BJP leaders was sharp.
The two parties will have to have the will and the skill to draft a joint programme so deft as to satisfy the followers of both or a deadlock would lead to governor’s rule for six months and a fresh election thereafter.
