Conclusion

Governance is the function of a cluster of factors. The priorities of governance and their hierarchical order vary from place to place, depending on specific contexts. Jammu and Kashmir is a conflicted state with both exogenous and endogenous dimensions. There is a dispute over Kashmir, a dispute with the centre, and the dispute among the regions of the state. All cumulatively create permanent instability in Kashmir. The conflict began with the Partition and it continues to stay. In July 1952, Nehru stated in the Indian Parliament, ‘If you go to Kashmir you will find normalcy and that the state is functioning adequately; but behind this normalcy is the constant tension because of the enemy trying to come in to create trouble and disturb.’...

A Difference in Degree (1964–75)

Though Bakhshi with strong backing by Delhi succeeded in creating ‘cold peace’ phase by going for development and providing basic necessities to the people, yet, some of the policy instruments especially curbing of civil liberties and promoting corruption and nepotism went well with the hegemony project as goonda raj and misuse of power evoked strong reaction both within and outside Kashmir. Most importantly, however, Bakhshi showed diffidence in cooperating with further integrationist moves of the centre. Hence it was regarded necessary to change the leadership in Kashmir and install G.M. Sadiq whose alternative views were clearly known. The fourth chapter examines the nature and the changes in governance during the period of Sadiq and the extent of his success in a hostile environment to which he also added fuel notwithstanding his celebration of ‘liberalism and clean government

Patronage Government (1953–63)

The aggressive campaign by Praja Parishad in Jammu and Buddhist groups of Ladakh, assisted by Hindu nationalist forces in Delhi, deeply disillusioned Sheikh Abdullah. The nature of the revolt clashed sharply with the ideology of Abdullah which had prompted him to prefer India over Pakistan. Having got disillusioned with the expectations he had pinned on Indian secularism and India’s constitutional promises of sovereignty, Sheikh voiced his disappointment publicly and drifted towards a position in support of plebiscite which led to his widely condemned dismissal. The deposition of Sheikh Abdullah in 1953, replaced by Bakhshi, created a storm in Kashmir followed by the formation of Plebiscite Front under the patronage of Abdullah. At the same time the central government had the urgency to further integrate Kashmir with India which the popular leader, Abdullah had resisted. Thus emerged the need of Gramsci’s ‘expansive hegemony’ to obtain the consent of the great mass of the people willingly and actively to the ruling establishment. The third chapter engages with the steps taken by Bakhshi under the patronage of the central government to change the tide in favour of the Indian nation-state and their impact.

Contextualizing Governance

The first chapter contextualizes governance in Kashmir in the context of the role played by various factors that shaped and continue to shape the nature and character of governance in Kashmir. Among them mention may be made of the impact of Kashmir dispute, identity politics of the state, the legacy of the authoritarian, feudal and exclusivist princely order, ideological orientation of the freedom movement, Kashmir’s special position, its contestation and disorder in Kashmir, policy interventions from the centre, financial crisis and the changing environment which characterizes the period. It also provide an overview of the changing context of the Kashmiri society in which governance has to operate.

Introduction

What Happened to Governance in Kashmir? documents the state of management of trouble-torn Kashmir by ‘client governments’.1 It is a story of engagement with political instability through the use of different instruments, strategies, and tactics to create ‘order’ in what Sanjib Baruah terms, in a different context, ‘durable disorder’....

Kashmir Summer (1975–89)

The failure of ‘liberalization’ to neutralize the dissident voice further convinced the central leadership that despite deploying all persuasive measures by the governments, Bakhshi onwards, peace in Kashmir was only hanging on to its eyelids. This realization, together with pulls and pressures on the Sheikh, led to Indira–Abdullah Accord of 1975. With the coming of Abdullah to power, Kashmir witnessed almost a decade of ‘peace’. It seemed that, at least, the internal dimension of conflict is buried for all times to come. However, hopes belied. Around the same time a new voice was born out of the debris of buried Plebiscite Front culminating in armed resistance in 1989-90. The fifth chapter delineates the processes that resulted only in a short-lived peace.

How New Was the New Kashmir (1948–53)?

Being the main inspiration behind the Naya Kashmir programme and its chief sponsor, Sheikh Abdullah’s brief period of little over five years (1948–1953) is characterized by the process of speedy implementation of the programme. However, notwithstanding the revolutionary changes in agrarian relations and other aspects, the condition of the common people worsened and the whole period got mired in controversies and conflicts leading to the disillusionment of the people as well as dismissal of the Sheikh. The second chapter therefore revisits the period by examining the extent to which the Sheikh succeeded in replacing the old by ‘new Kashmir’.