The Kashmir problem has occupied prominence in Indian and international politics far beyond what is warranted by its size and its limited resources. Four wars have been fought between India and Pakistan over it, its status has been pending with the U.N. since 1948, and it has become an issue in superpower politics as well.

Kashmir was one of the princely states of India, enjoying a semi-autonomous status under British rule. At independence, its real choice, as with other such autonomous states, was either to merge with India or Pakistan. Pakistan, with a clear territorial design on the valley, precipitated the issue by allowing its army to advance towards the state capital of Srinagar, which forced the ruler to accede to the Indian Union. When the Indian army reached Srinagar to combat the Pakistani hoodlums, euphoria swept the entire valley; the Kashmiris greeted the Indian jawans with open arms.

Kashmir's importance in Indian politics lies in the fact that it is the symbol of the very ideological basis of the Indian state. Kashmir's integration in Pakistan could not be acceptable because it would have validated the Pakistani Premiere Mr. Jinnah"s two-nation theory - one for Hindus and one for Muslims - the two, not being capable of living together in peace.

On the other hand, India's ideology of secularism accommodated religious diversity in a pluralist democracy. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India scripted the accession of Kashmir to demonstrate that despite the horrors of Partition, the people of a Muslim-majority princely state could be persuaded to link their future with the secular and socialist India. In fact, Maharaja Hari Singh (Hindu ruler of Kashmir's) offer of accession was not accepted until it was endorsed by Sheikh Abdullah, the most popular Muslim leader of the National Conference in Kashmir.

Kashmir's integration was given special status by Article 370 of the Constitution of India, which exempted its full application to Kashmir. This was at the insistence of Maharaja Hari Singh who limited accession to Defence, Foreign Affairs and communications only - an arrangement endorsed by Sheikh Abdullah also. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the then Home Minister was at odds with Nehru's Kashmir policy. He inherited the colonial belief that the primary responsibility of the Centre was to hold the country together - demands for autonomy could tear it apart. Nehru was more concerned with winning the allegiance of the people than gaining the territory - Art. 370 was a step in that direction.

Thus, Kashmir has always been a factor in the troubled relationship between India and Pakistan. It is the biggest apple of discord between the two countries. Pakistan feels that if a plebiscite was held in Kashmir, as promised by the U.N., there would be an overwhelming vote in favour of merger with Pakistan, as the majority of the population is Muslim.

India questions the interference of the UN in a matter which is purely internal, as the ruler of Kashmir had legitimately acceded to India and not Pakistan, with the support of the people. The matter, India believes, needs to be resolved bilaterally between the two countries, as agreed by them, under the Simla Pact. Moreover, India argues, a plebiscite could be held only in a more congenial situation, not in a state rife with terrorism, sponsored by Pakistan. To keep the issue alive, Pakistan very recently waged and lost the Kargil war, transgressing the international line of control that marks the Indo-Pak border.

Although Kashmir as a whole is a Muslim majority state, it is divided into three distinct cultural regions - the Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladakh.

The population of the Kashmir valley is almost 95% Muslims. Jammu has a Hindu majority of about 64%. Ladakh, bigger than Jammu and Kashmir together, is sparsely populated with less than 150,000 people, mostly Tibetan Buddhists. The three regions have different political orientations.

The Hindu-majority Jammu region desires full integration with India; Ladakhis are more or less non-committal, although they would feel more comfortable with India; and the Muslim majority in the Kashmir valley would prefer autonomy rather than merger with Pakistan.

Autonomy has different shades of meanings and connotations to different people - Nehru meant by it an autonomy within the framework of Article 370, bestowing upon the state a special status. The present ruling party at the Centre, the BJP, finds Art. 370 especially anathema to its goals, clearly declared in its Election Manifesto. BJP openly advocates full integration of Kashmir with the rest of India.

In Kashmir itself there are two distinct viewpoints - the moderates, represented by the ruling National Conference, would like autonomy within the framework of the Indian Constitution, while the extremists and the Muslim rebels, represented by the Harkat-ul-Mujahidin or the Lashkar, demand secession and creation of a separate state. The Hurriyat, though it also demands autonomy, is not as extremist as other Muslim groups.

On 25 June, 2000, the state assembly of Jammu & Kashmir, under the National Conference (NC) , passed a resolution demanding the autonomy it enjoyed under the 1952 Delhi agreement. The popularity of this government, in the fourth year in office, is perceptibly on the decline. Autonomy was the trump-card in Dr. Abdullah's (Chief Minister of the state) hands. He decided to play this card when Delhi started muttering about talking to Hurriyat in an attempt to resolve the problem once and for all.

The autonomy resolution passed by the state assembly is neither inherently unreasonable nor violative of the Indian Constitution. But the NC has lost the moral authority to demand it now. When it came to power in 1996, it conveniently forgot the urgency of autonomy.

If the NC is allowed to appropriate the autonomy platform for itself, the Hurriyat would be left with no other option but to harden its demand for full independence for Kashmir. Only a firm refusal on the part of Delhi to discuss so important an issue with a four year old government with waning popularity can arrest the slide into abyss, in the view of This Observer.

It may be, however, said that the autonomy resolution does represent the true aspirations of the people of Jammu & Kashmir. What then are its implications?

Firstly, it comes after the progressive integration of Jammu & Kashmir with India over a period of 50 years --- it is therefore a retrogressive step.

Secondly, the proposal means a reversal of the Indian stand that Jammu & Kashmir is an integral part of India.

Thirdly, other states in India could also demand a similar status.

Fourthly, the balance of power between the Centre and the states would be redefined --- only defence, foreign affairs and communications would remain with the central government; a separate civil service would have to be created; Art. 356, empowering the centre to dismiss state governments, would not be applicable to the Jammu & Kashmir; election and audit systems would have to be reworked.

Numerous amendments would be required in the Constitution.

Lastly, the resolution to become --- constitutionally acceptable --- would require ratification by two-thirds of the states of the Union. In sum, the federal system would become a confederal arrangement.

The Union Cabinet of India, under Prime Minister Vajpayee, on 5 July, 2000, rejected the autonomy resolution of the state government, as its "acceptance would have set the clock back." It would be "tantamount to removal of essential safeguards enshrined in the Constitution for the unity of the country," it said.

The decision of the cabinet is fraught with dangers. The stage is now set for fresh international drama in the immediate future. There could be escalating demands by the various groups in Kashmir for a separate political entity. Pakistan, with a military dictator at its head, keen to divert attention from internal turmoil, could certainly fish in the troubled waters. There is even a likelihood that foreign powers may intervene and accept the proposal as the initial basis to evolve a compromise between India and Pakistan.

India would have to initiate diplomatic and political steps to inform the international community of the serious implications of this precipitate proposal of autonomy --- well before its hostile neighbours turn the tables in their favour.