 Hello and welcome to NewsClick on Monday, December 11, 2023, if five-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered its verdict on what we now know as the Article 370 cases related to Jammu and Kashmir. One of these petitions filed by senior retired bureaucrats and military personnel had argued that the sentiments of the people of Kashmir were disregarded by the central government when it without consultation read down Article 370 in August 2019. The court has today ruled that Article 370 was a temporary provision and Jammu and Kashmir held known to quote internal sovereignty after accession to India. It has also said that the concurrence of the state government was not required to apply the Indian constitution to the now erstwhile state in its entirety. It has also said elections must be held in Jammu and Kashmir and it has spoken about statehood. We go over to one of the petitions in this crucial matter which will have ramifications no doubt of Indian politics, retired air-wise Marshal Kapil Kaak for his very first reactions. Thank you very much for joining us Mr. Kaak. Let's begin with the basic question first. Now given the record of the Supreme Court of not wanting to touch any legislative matter any law the government passes are you surprised by today's decision of the Supreme Court? I think it's not just me but I'd like to share with you and the viewers that I've passed hundreds of people in the state of JNK over the last few months and there and my conviction has been absolutely doubtless that this is the kind of judgment we would get in essence. We can leave the commas and the full stops and we were convinced that the abrogation would be upheld. There may be some kind of a relief in terms of statehood and as you rightly said not touching any legislative business and as we will discuss in the interview there are also some contradictions and I don't want to comment upon the judgment of the honorable Supreme Court the finest members of the judiciary at the apex level until I have seen the full judgment we haven't I haven't seen the full judgment but I heard the deliberation and that gives me an idea to accept your very thoughtful and kind invitation to your short interview. So no surprises there very much on expected lines the people and I think one of the Supreme Court judges honorable Sanjay Kall talked about people being at the heart of the debate I'm sorry with all the respect to the Supreme Court and the highest judiciary utmost respect that people are not under consideration here people of J&K for whom the article 370 was meant and repeatedly we had only integration we had a certain point set with what happened on what didn't happen and as I said I can with due respect to the Supreme Court honorable court also point out some contradictions. Please go ahead before I move to any further questions that I might have what are the contradictions that you seem to be referring to? You see the earlier Supreme Court judgments have said that the article 370 has acquired a permanent character this judgment is unanimous on the point that article 370 was temporary now and that there was no internal sovereignty article 370 was a form of internal sovereignty because sovereignty never absolute and I'm not a lawyer and it's not rocket science to figure out fine print of judgments and points paid therein. One palpable contradiction is that the Supreme Court in utter disregard of article 370 until its application article 1, 2 and 3 of 370 enumerates very precisely unambiguously how it can be abrogated and for that abrogations constituent assemblies prior concurrences required. Supreme Court has argued and in their judgment I respect the judgment that once the constituent assembly of JNK ceased to exist in 26th of January 1957 the president had all powers to do the abrogation of 370 that's point one. Point two is Supreme Court has itself declared ultra varies the employment of article 367 which deals with interpreting constitutional articles insertion of a clause there whereby for the constituent assembly the state assembly so the parliament then becomes the repository of whatever state assembly means to me and I'm not a lawyer but as a humanist as a security analyst as somebody who's worked on the ground in JNK for two decades 24 by 7, 24 by 7 I believe that the question of declaring 367 kind of ultra varies use of that and then saying president has full powers under article 370 so this is a very, very I mean we need to keep in mind that this judgment is being read all over the world it is not just in parts of India and certainly the state of Jammu and Kashmir so this is what I wanted to point out third is I do not know once again with utmost respect to the honorable court what was the point of one of the members of the highest court in the country talking about sentiment talking about an epilogue in which he says this is a sentiment we are dealing with a very, very critical issue of article 370 of a very sensitive state which has been under conflict for more than three decades where is the place for a sentiment expressed by a supreme court judge and then saying but I leave it to the state to decide whether the sentiment should be brought in or not to my mind that sentiment and its expression is irrelevant that is not the issue under discussion. But what do you make of the very noble sounding proposal that there be a truth and conciliation commission on the lines of South Africa do you think that is possible no matter how good it may sound? It is I as a principle we accept and that is what the honorable supreme court judges also said giving the example of South Africa but South Africa we need to understand that the truth and reconciliation commission was appointed after the issue had been resolved. Truth and reconciliation commission before the issue has been resolved and therefore finding resolution through truth and conciliation is a horrible proposition to suggest because this will open up the wounds and you will never come anywhere near a resolution of the issue. You mentioned the wounds now you know what does this decision mean to the Hindus and the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir? Now there is an element of what I would say disjunction why do I say this? As far as the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir are concerned I know not just Jammu and Kashmir I would also like to point out Ladakh particularly this district of Kargil. As far as the Hindus in the valley are concerned and roughly about 15,000 in number wholeheartedly supportive of the idea of continuance of article 370. As far as the Hindus or Kashmiri pundits as we are called incidentally I am a Kashmiri pundit too who live in Jammu they have gone along with the obligation from 5th and 6th of August 2019 and celebrated it but sadly the people within whom they live that is the dogras of Jammu they have expressed reservations about the way this article abrogation has panned out because demography if anything has demography if anything is effective Jammu region it's culturally geographically very close to Daudal and Punjab so by removing certain impediments to that demographic change or economic breakthrough in regional terms they have been the sufferers it doesn't happen to Kashmir valley so that is as far as the Hindu and Muslim Muslims are the valley frankly I have been I have talked to hundreds of people over the last week or so completely and totally indifferent to this judgment because they knew what the judgment would be like each one of them was convinced it will be a judgment which will uphold article 370 abrogation and as to statehood and elections they are again disinterested in the sense that the sufferance is total because they have gone through denial of rights I mean we again come back to the point about people being at the heart which justice SK Kaul mentioned in his epilogue but if you're talking about people being at the heart of the issue of 370 in the state of Jammu and Kashmir particularly in the valley of Kashmir then I'm afraid neither the honorable Supreme Court nor the government of India have addressed this it is not a development yes maybe economic development is taking place maybe tourists are visiting utmost sense of normalcy traffic jams but there is a bigger jam inside the hearts and minds of the people and that goes back to not just 5th 6th August 2019 but even before that whether it is denial of rights it is criminalization of your profession of journalism complete clamp down on on whatever the journalist's right and hauling them in cyber police stations and elsewhere to see that whatever they post is is cleared by by the government that's not that's not democracy is journalism people not being allowed to express their views not being allowed to meet now this is part of what they see as oppression well it could be termed from the point of view of the center that this is a process of integration it demands hard muscular policies being adopted to ensure that this integration takes place but may I submit once again Pragya for your consideration integration is a mutual process between the state and the Indian Union it has to be under mutually acceptable accommodative principles which are negotiated through a dialogue through docs that's not happening there's no dialogue one has seen in decades I think the last kind of an informal dialogue between the center and and the political leadership was sometimes in 2006 or 2007 when Manon Singh's government had actually started the process of talking to the political leadership of the state including separatist leadership and we had come to as you know more than anyone else through what is called the four point formula or the peace process come to a situation that you don't only resolve the issue of Jamun Kashmir through non-territorial means and no exchange of territories but people to people contact across the line of control movement of relatives to each other's country because there are relatives at both sides of the line of control and the border and various other issues of common interest like climate change like water resources forestry resources all that was part of that hasn't happened we haven't moved forward and it's now nearly 16 years since we had a last dialogue so how do we therefore if people are the heart of an issue how can we move forward through constitutional fears which are which are inherently unilateral and without the consultation I mean I'm saying this with a very clear conscience that we needed to this is something perhaps the Supreme Court it was very much aware of of course they have not deemed it appropriate to include this aspect for in their judgment that when this was when the constitutional order 272 and 273 and the reorganization of JNK state when they were announced on the floor of parliament before that announcement 5500 political workers including pro-india mainstream leaders were imprisoned and how serious and clampdowns were put in chain so I think the judgment has to be linked with those processes as well you know one of the things the Supreme Court has how hinted at is the security concerns and you just mentioned that the Muslims in the valley are silent to what extent is that silence because of the exhaustion with militancy with the ebb and flow of you know violence of various kinds in the state and and will that will that mean that there is a sort of consensus on then on that you know ye toh hola hi tha is one way of looking at it but is there a hope a sliver of hope that maybe this will improve thing what the court has called full integration and the complete application of the constitution of India I'm sorry the supreme court's hope that you talked about is confronting with the utmost sets of hopelessness in the valley now if you're talking about hoping the rest of India including the union and the central government one thing but when you talk about the hopelessness of kashmir it's not going to this will in no way help integration if anything this will worsen the inside mind and heart of the people of the valley why do I say this because they're deeply alienated they're angry but they're not coming out earlier as they did with stones and with protests and but it is a as a student of history I know that when you keep issues suppressed and when you don't allow people their democratic aspirations after all why aren't any elections held for the last six years no not six years nine years the last election was in 2014 the last time when people had their elected representatives was in 2018 that's also a full term of an assembly why hasn't that happened and the holding of elections to my mind is once again a kind of a fixed match because the government says that it is up to the election commission you go to the chief election commissioner he says that well we have to consult the government and even the supreme court and its wisdom has decided the elections were will be done before the 30th September 2024 I have not read the judgment I do not know what's the reason for fixing 30th September and not 30th April you as a journalist can provide the answer well I was I was going to ask you will Ladakh actually now remain a union territory does Ladakh lose the chance of full statehood completely is that hope extinguished there no on that they have this honorable supreme court have not adjudicated on the lowering of state of Jammu and kishmi status to that of a union territory that is a bit of a surprise why haven't they adjudicated there because as far as I know and I'm not a lawyer article three doesn't allow you to downgrade a state to a union territory it allows you to take out some parts of a state to form a union territory which is what has been done in in the case of the dark but article three also says there have been consultations with that particular state of course you can argue with the lawyer that as a lawyer that since the state is not assembly doesn't exist who do we consult therefore we consult the parliament which is doing it on behalf of the state assembly and then the government of jammu and kishmi it doesn't exist so therefore we consult the governor who's a central appointee so you see that these are the huge contradiction that I was talking about neutral constitution which which which will pain and cause a great deal of grief to the people of the valley as far as Ladakh is concerned you're already aware Ladakh is up in arms people of Kargil have recently met the home minister seeking redressal by way of some kind of return to the old time before 156th august that's right issues I don't want to go into detail likewise the buddhist majority lay region is also feeling suffocated because of lack of democracy because there is a bureaucrats who are running the show in Ladakh earlier they at least had a jnk assembly where their representatives were elected and they put forward their issues in that assembly now there is no forum for them to accept their any of their grievances other than the bureaucracy which is once again appointed by the central government you seem to be saying that the wishes of the people of jammu and kishmi including ladakh appear to be completely sidelined and do you also feel along with that that the politics of the rest of india especially in the north vis-a-vis kishmir has taken precedence somewhere or the other and that continues I think it would not be fair because as I said I do not want to comment on what drives the hearts and minds of honorable supreme court judges who pronounce this verdict what are the political factors their minds are beyond my remit and I would like to comment I have that most respect for the supreme court which is the apex judiciary in India so I would not comment on the politics of the north having an effect but I can only comment on what they have what have they have read out that I heard every word and that doesn't explain as to how 30th September as the last date for the elections is valid because I know what the kishmiris will say to that and I can say I can share that with you what the 30th September is because then the elections to the national level would have been completed by mejoom and then you can hold elections in kishmir but if you hold elections in kishmir today the ruling dispensation will be wiped out through a democratic process that is the assessment of the people in kishmir so they don't want to so supreme court in that sense as the kishmiris say not that I say what my friends tell me from the valley that this could be the reason why it has been kept 30 years ago one more point very very important I'd like to conclude this because I have some people waiting in the line for an interview that elections should be done by 30th September fine statehood as soon as possible the supreme court is exactly what amit Shah said on the floor of the parliament as soon as normalcy returns kishmir hasn't seen normalcy for 30 years or to go to the home minister and the central dispensation they have said everything is normal in kishmir if it is normal then why don't you have elections in two months so everything is not normal so what is said is not the fact on the ground and what is fact on the ground is not said by the ruling dispensation to conclude sir last thing what are your feelings are you extremely disappointed do you feel perhaps a tinge angry or is there some hope of something changing you know I have you're doing not be aware since you asked a personal question that we share my personal view on the issue I have been in the flying branch of the Indian air force I wore an air force uniform took part in two india pakistan wars I do have an idea of issues of politics and security sometimes if you do overdo security then you tend to create a politics which creates insecurity so one has to be very very cautious in managing the circularity of politics and security the honorable supreme court you would have observed has also talked about integration integration repeatedly this expression was and even the abrogation was described as the final final step in the integration but integration from whose perspective maybe the as article 370 itself says otherwise it wouldn't have existed because that sort of established a bridge between the jamun kishmid sovereign when it was incorporated after maharaja exceeded to another sovereign country maharaja was a sovereign king of an independent state on 26th of october 1947 when he when he signed the instrument of accession so was so was india sovereign india post independence now between two sovereigns then the question arises how much do you respect the wishes of the people I have to say without hesitation that maharaja of kishmi went by the constitution of 1939 article 35a was nothing but his constitutional order of 1927 and then 1928 or 29 by which he gave the residence of his state citizens of his state certain spiritual privileges in terms of land in terms of job in terms of identity and what was subsequently formulated as article 370 because he the maharaja had powers over every issue other than defense foreign relations and communication right so so when you say you know the people and how they view this situation I seem to think that firstly I expected secondly I'm also a petitioner as you know I have been one of the 23 petitioners and by would a former armed forces officer was the resident of the state feed strongly enough to petition the highest court in india that what the central government has done is wrong so that way I'm disappointed as a 90% of the kishmiris in the valley and also very significant percentage of people in the jammu region and also people of ladakh so there's it's a it's a disappointment in that regional demographic job right so thank you very much for joining us and we hope to have another conversation a few days down the line when you've seen the judgment and when the picture gets a little more clear thank you