COALITION GOVERNMENT IN JAMMU AND KASHMIR FROM 2002 – 2008

Pervaz Ahmad Mir1 Mohd Ishaq Khanday2 Bilal Ahmad Shah3 and ParvaizRasool4

1. Ph.D. Research Scholar Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Annamalai

University. Annamalai Nagar, Tamil Nadu, EMAIL@: pervazahmad675@yahoo.in

2. Ph.D. Research Scholar Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Annamalai

University. Annamalai Nagar, Tamil Nadu, EMAIL@: ishaqish62@gmail.com

3. Ph.D. Research Scholar Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Annamalai

University. Annamalai Nagar, Tamil Nadu, E mail bilalshah40004@gmail.com

4. Parvaiz Rasool. Department of Education Jammu and Kashmir, Email:parvaizrasoolnen@yahoo.com

Abstract

The present research paper attempts at the understanding of the system of

coalition and an evaluation of its implications for society. Coalition politics is based on

a system of governance by a group of political parties or by several political parties.

When several political parties collaborate to form a government and exercise the

political power on the basis of a common agreed programme/agenda we can describe

such a system as coalition politics or coalition government. Such a government is

usually organized when no party is in a position to get a majority in the parliament or

state legislature and some parties form a coalition group or an alliance and thus forms a

government. A coalition government is a collaborative or cooperative effort, in which

several political parties or some political parties in association with some independent

representatives form a government.

The coalition government in Jammu and Kashmir during 2002 to 2008

Assembly elections, generally acknowledged to be fair, and helped build some kind of

confidence in the electoral institutions and processes. Till now, the formation of

government and its sustenance in power was more dependent on the support of the

Centre rather than the mandate of people. The electoral politics therefore was quite

distanced from the popular responses. Breaking the hegemony of the single dominant

party also brought an alternative to the PDP-Congress coalition power. The possibility

that a government could be changed through the participation of people in the electoral

process, rather than through the manipulative politics of the Centre, strengthened the

stake of the people in this process.

The performance of the People’s Democratic Part - Congress coalition

government in Jammu and Kashmir was dismal and disappointing; Congress party will

have to pay a heavy price in the state as it badly let down the aspirations of people of

Jammu and Ladakh regions to please its pro-autonomy and communal masters in the

Valley. The Congress enjoys power in the state since November 5, 2002, because of

Jammu and Ladakh region but instead of fulfilling the promises it held out in 2002 and

2008 elections, the party acted as the first of the pro-self-rule PDP and then the pro-

autonomy Congress.

The coalition government has failed miserably to deliver on any front and also

took to task the Congress for its failure to tackle the acute unemployment problem in

Jammu province and its failure to empower the refugees. The party workers to fan out

across the state to expose not only the misdeeds of the People’s Democratic Party-

Congress coalition government but also the politics of bluff indulged in by the

Congress during the past years.

After the 2002 Assembly polls, the PDP and the Congress ruled in Jammu and

Kashmir by turns with two parties getting the chief minister's post in rotation but fell

out with each other in the aftermath of the Amarnath land issue. The PDP withdrew

support to the Congress-led government in June, leading to resignation of the then chief

minister Ghulam Nabi Azad followed by dissolution of the state Assembly and

promulgation of Governor's rule in the state.

Key words: People’s Democratic Party, Indian National Congress, Coalition, Jammu

and Kashmir, Democracy, Legislative Assembly, Elections, Government

Introduction

According to Dictionary meaning, “Dictionary Coalition  governments

occur in places where no one party  is in the majority.”

According to web definitions, “A coalition government is a cabinet of a parliamentary

government in which several political parties cooperate, reducing the dominance of any

one party within that coalition. The usual reason given for this arrangement is that no

party on its own can achieve a majority in the parliament.”

According to the Oxford English dictionary, ‘the word coalition means an alliance for

combined action of distinct parties’ persons or state without permanent incorporation

into one body.

The term coalition is derived from the Latin word coalition which is the verbal

substantive of coalesce co-together and alesere to grow up which means to go or to

grow together.

A coalition is a pact or treaty among individuals or groups, during which they

cooperate in joint action, each in their own self-interest, joining forces together for a

common cause. This alliance may be temporary or a matter of convenience. A coalition

thus differs from a more formal covenant. They possibly described as a joining of

'factions’, usually those with overlapping interests rather than opposing.

A coalition government is a cabinet of a parliamentary government in which

several political parties cooperate, reducing the dominance of any one party within that

coalition. The usual reason given for this arrangement is that no party on its own can

achieve a majority in the parliament. A coalition government might also be created in a

time of national difficulty or crisis, for example during wartime, or economic crisis, to

give a government the high degree of perceived political legitimacy, or collective

identity it desires while also playing a role in diminishing internal political strife. In

such times, parties have formed all-party coalitions (national unity governments, grand

coalitions). If a coalition collapses, a confidence vote is held or a motion of no

confidence is taken.

To deal with a situation in which no clear majorities appear through general elections,

parties either form coalition cabinets, supported by a parliamentary majority,

or minority cabinets which may consist of one or more parties. Cabinets based on a

coalition with majority in a parliament, ideally, are more stable and long-lived than

minority cabinets. While the former are prone to internal struggles, they have less

reason to fear votes of non-confidence. Majority governments based on a single party

are typically even more stable, as long as their majority can be maintained.

Methodology:-

The present study makes an attempt to examine the coalition government in

Jammu and Kashmir during 2002 to 2008.It is primarily a fact finding study based on

the exploratory method. This study is based on secondary sources of data which

includes, Assembly debates, Daily News Papers, Manuals, Periodicals and Articles

published in Journals etc. hence this study is based on the Descriptive and Historical

approach.

Historical Background of J&K State Assembly Elections 2002: Total Seats: 87

Turnout: 44 percent

2002 Election Results

Party Seats Won

National Conference 28

Congress 20

PDP 16

Panther's Party 4

CPI (M) 2

BJP 1

BSP 1

Independent 15

Total 87

A Brief discussion on coalition government from 2002-2008

The Goal of the Coalition Government is to cure the physical, psychological and

emotional wounds inflicted by fourteen years of militancy, to restore the rule of law in

Jammu & Kashmir State, to complete the revitalization of the political process which was

began with the recently concluded elections, and to request the Government of India to

initiate and hold, sincerely and seriously, wide ranging consultations and dialogue, without

conditions, with the members of the legislature and other segments of public opinion in all

the three regions of the State, to evolve abroad - based compromise on restoration of peace

with honour in the State.

Ensuring safety of lives and properties, restoring dignity and honor of all

persons in the State will be the foremost concern of the Government. The Coalition

Government will take all possible measures within its power, to protect all the people in

the State of Jammu and Kashmir from cruelty and militancy, whether originating from

within or outside the State, and to encourage those young men from the State who have

resorted to militancy to return to their families and the mainstream, with the faith that

they will receive security and impartiality according to the law. At the same time, the

State Government will fully cooperate with the Government of India in struggle cross-

border militancy originating from Pakistan.

People’s Democratic Party

The Jammu and Kashmir People’s Democratic Party is a state political party in Jammu

and Kashmir, India. It was founded in 1999 by the former Union Minister Mufti

Mohammad Sayeed, and captured power in the Jammu and Kashmir in October 2002

Assembly election.

In 2002 Assembly election, National Conference vanished its domination and

for the first time National Conference was useless by the masses of Jammu and

Kashmir .Unlike the earlier election when politics was defined by dominance of the

National Conference with no alternative available to people . This election provided the

people the choice to vote either for the National Conference or People’s Democratic

Party. In the real sense it was the beginning of the new dawn and suitable era for the

people of Jammu and Kashmir People’s Democratic Party led by Mufti Mohammad

Sayeed came into power with the short duration of three years after its emergence in

1999 defeat the National Conference completely on every ground. The reason for that is

people were tired with the hegemonic period of National Conference and its dull

policies.

The Assembly election of 2002 that ended the period of hegemonic politics of

National Conferences has a strong impact both National Conferences as the single

dominating party in the political sense. This badly impact on the process of

democratization process, especially in the valley of Kashmir where the presence of

opposition was almost insignificant. After acquire the power of People’s Democratic

Party led by Mufti Mohammad Sayeed along with coalition Government of Indian

National Congress reveal its politics and objective.

After coming into power in 2002 election People’s Democratic Party had to

suffer a transformation because it was not only the period of change but perspective for

the party’s role . After overcoming so many obstacles by the power of real democracy

the party came into enjoy the power. The first and the fore most policy that was

formulated by the coalition Government order to win the minds and heart of the people

was the “Healing Touch Policy”. It was the first step taken by the party in order to build

a permanent impression in the civil society of Kashmir. It served as a goal for building

the trust in the common people of Kashmir.

The Jammu and Kashmir People’s Democratic Party is an national Kashmiri

party advocating self rule for Jammu and Kashmir. To realize this goal the Jammu and

Kashmir People’s Democratic Party calls for very specific action that must be taken and

standard that must be set. The Jammu and Kashmir People’s Democratic Party calls for

the free movement of goods between the boarders of Jammu and Kashmir this would

soul render all boarders around the valley “unrelated” according to the Jammu and

Kashmir People’s Democratic Party. Also essential to this purpose is complete

economic autonomy with self authority over water and other resources with the valley

of Kashmir. The Jammu and Kashmir People’s Democratic Party is also calling for a

demilitarization of civilian areas.

The current head of the Jammu and Kashmir People’s Democratic Party is

Mahbooba Mufti, daughter of Mufti Mohammad Syeed. In 2004, The Jammu and

Kashmir People’s Democratic Party won state Assembly election and formed state

Government. After winning the state election, The Jammu and Kashmir People’s

Democratic Party sent one member to the upper house and one member to the lower

house of the Indian parliament .The Jammu and Kashmir People’s Democratic Party

was also a party to the coalition of united nation improvement coalition. Presently

Jammu and Kashmir People’s Democratic Party is the largest opposition party in the

Kashmir Legislative Assembly. To realize this goal the Jammu and Kashmir

People’s Democratic Party advocated Self-rule is dependent upon a combination of

inter- state measures and supra- state measures rather than isolation. The party has been

sensitive of Kashmir specific confidence building measures undertaken by India and

Pakistan and advocating the pledge of the Kashmir conflict through a constant peace

dialogue.

The people's Democratic Party took all possible measures within its power, to protect

all the people in the State of Jammu and Kashmir from violent behavior and militancy,

whether originating from within or outside the State, and to encourage those young men

from the State who have resorted to militancy to return to their families and the

mainstream, with the belief that they will receive security and impartiality according to

law. At the same time, the State Government fully cooperates with the Government of

India in hostility cross-border militancy originating from Pakistan.

The People's Democratic Party reviewed many cases of detainees being held

without trial for long periods. It released many detainees held on non-specific charges,

those not charged with serious crimes and those who have been held on charges that are

such that the period they have spent in jail exceeds their possible sentence.

The People's Democratic Party took the initiative to review the operation of all

such laws that have been used in the past decade to deprive people of their basic rights

to life and liberation for long periods of time, without due legal process. Where the

Government deems that some special powers need to be retained, PDP ensured, by

instituting careful and transparent pre- screening and monitoring procedures, that such

powers are used sparingly and those entrusted with them are held accountable for any

misuse.

The PDP implemented special schemes to convalesce former militants who have

forsworn violence and rejoined the mainstream. The PDP Government reached to the

children, widows and parents of the deceased militants and make activities to provide

education to the militancy-affected orphans. The Government reaffirms that the return

of Kashmiri Pandits to their motherland is an essential feature of Kashmiriat. The

Government made an effort to seek the cooperation of all elements in the society to

create an atmosphere conducive to their safe return, PDP took all necessary steps to

ensure their safety and devise effective -measures for their treatment and employment.

The People's Democratic Party approached the Government of India for providing

adequate financial assistance for the relief and treatment of the migrants from various

disturbed areas of Jammu and Ladakh as well. Persons living close to the line of control

and the international border face special difficulties due to recurrent tension and cross

border violence. Permanent shelters were constructed in many susceptible areas to

prevent loss of life. The Government devised a scheme to provide, wherever feasible,

alternative land to such families in safe zones.

People's Democratic Party took major initiatives to control the malevolence of

corruption of the state of Jammu and Kashmir in which they succeeded to a great

extent. Government offices were raided from time to time in order to check the

punctuality, regularity of the officers and to check the accurateness of the government

officers regarding their work and constancy. Many government employees at times

were suspended because of their irregularity in the government offices.

People's Democratic Party created so many new opportunities of employment for

the people of Jammu and Kashmir in order to curb the problem of unemployment in the

valley that has became the major cause of all harms in the state. People's Democratic

Party always strained for the development of private sector in the valley so as to get rid

of the unemployment. For curtailment of the fragileness of people of valley and to

make new jobs and opportunities for them, People's Democratic Party invited

many multi-national companies like Reliance, Tata, and many other companies. During

their course of moment People's Democratic Party left no stone unturned to complete

the mile stones and succeeded that they set through their agendas and policies.

The role played by the People’s Democratic Party resulted with engagement of

the people with the peace process who were affected by turmoil’s in the state. The

people of Jammu and Kashmir witnessed a ray of hope for the long standing dispute of

the state. The most important thing is that the civil society was modernized by this

process. By the unity among the civil society and the state Government, the resolution

became the responsibility of the people.

The main objective of the Jammu and Kashmir People’s Democratic Party, to

mobilize public opinion in the state and in the country in favour of persuading the

Government of India to adopt a policy of understanding and reconciliation and initiate a

comphrensive and unconditional dialogue with the people of Kashmir to the resolution

of the Kashmir problem.

Indian National Congress

The pretty as a picture hill station, Jammu and Kashmir is a politically

active state. Starting from the pre-independence days, the Indian National Congress was

an active player in the state’s political affairs. The present government has been formed

by the Congress and their ally, the People's Democratic Party (PDP). After the former

PDP candidate Mufti Mohammad Sayeed was ousted, Ghulam Nabi Azad was elected

Chief Minister and continues to hold office. The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and

Congress coalition had ended on a bloody note and the state stood divided on

communal and regional lines. The wounds of 2008 are fresh in the minds of the people.

During the Congress-PDP coalition (2002-2008), there was a common

minimum programme, but that was implemented in a partisan manner. The PDP did

what it had promised and the Congress did what it felt was best for it. Then Congress

CM Ghulam Nabi Azad (2005-2008) went beyond the recommendations of the Wazir

Commission report. He set up eight districts in the state, four each in the Valley and

Jammu region, while the recommendations were only for four new districts, Bandipora

Samba, Reasi and Kishtwar. Now, that has become the headache. The equality has

created inequality.

In June 2008, Ghulam Nabi Azad Government announced plan to transfer

of forest land to the Board of a Hindu Shrine .Many Muslim were angered by this

decision and protest , leading the Government to cancel the transfer, however this

reversal, sworn provoked Hindu protests ,seven peoples were killed in violence that a

accompanied these protests. The People’s Democratic Party, a coalition partner of the

Indian National Congress in Jammu and Kashmir withdraw its support for Ghulam

Nabi Azad Government, and rather than attempted to maintain Government by

requesting a vote of confidence , Ghulam Nabi Azad resigned on 11July 2008.

The Ideology and programme of the Indian National Congress was founded

on the basis of secularism and nationalism. Its main object is to seek “the well being

and advancement of the people of India and the establishment in India by peaceful and

constitutional means, of a socialistic state based on parliamentary democracy in which

there is equality of opportunity and of political, economic and social rights and which

aims at world peace and fellowship,” for the Indian National Congress, the political

democracy has no meaning without economic democracy. The Indian National

Congress, has, therefore, always championed, in free India, the cause of economic

Independence. The party has been pledge itself to the establishment of a new socio-

political order based on political, economic and social justice. The party is committed

to the establishment of a socialistic pattern of society where the principal means of

production are under social ownership or control. Besides the party has firm faith in the

planned economic development service for which the state must have over all control of

resources, social purpose and trends and checks and prevent evils of anarchic industrial

development by maintenance of strategic control of labour and production. The Indian

National Congress belongs, in short, to an ideology of democracy nationalism,

socialism and secularism.

Amarnath land issue

Towards the end of the tenure of the Congress party’s Chief Minister in the Congress-

People’s Democratic Party (PDP) Coalition, the state of Jammu and Kashmir was

gearing up for elections to its Legislative Assembly. The controversy over the transfer

of land to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board (SASB) erupted after it was reported on June

03, 2008, that 39.88 hectares or 800 kanals of land had been transferred to SASB in the

Kukllan block of Sindh Forest Division, Baltal, with an arrangement for the payment of

Rs.2.31crores to enable the making of a road and some hutments for the pilgrims.

While the ‘transfer’ had been decided on by the ruling PDP, the party in the opposition,

the National Conference, raised concerns about ‘permanent transfer’ of land and an

attempted demographic change in the State.

Although the protest in Kashmir began sometime in the third week of June

2008, simmering frustration over the transfer of land to the shrine board has been

brewing for years. At first glance the entire calamity appears to be the result of petty

politicking resorted to by almost every political party in the state. The People’s

Democratic Party (PDP), known to skyjack the slogans of the separatists to expand its

own base in the valley, was quick to respond when several separatist organisations

began murmurs of protest following the state cabinet’s decision to transfer the land.

The PDP was then a partner in the state’s Congress-led coalition government.

At a press conference held on June 15, PDP leader and then deputy chief minister,

Muzaffar Hussain Baig, while justifying the distraction of land as a temporary move to

enable the creation of facilities for pilgrims also asserted that the Congress had been

blackmailing the PDP into agreeing to the land transfer. Fresh efforts at unity by the

two warring factions of the Hurriyat, led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Syed Ali Shah

Geelani who, on July 19, decided to launch a joint demonstration against the land

transfer, spurred the PDP into action, compelling it to politicize the issue and come out

in open revolt.

The Congress responded by supporting the transfer of land, hoping, in the run-

up to the state Assembly elections, to reap the harvest of votes in Jammu. Its main

opponent in the Hindu-dominated region, the BJP, also joined in the chorale. In the

valley, the National Conference jumped into the tussle, blame the PDP for the

turnabout. For the separatists it was time to regenerate their ranks after a long hiatus.

And as politicking began in the Kashmir valley, especially between the coalition

partners, it gave the BJP and its sangh parivar, joined by traders and lawyers, a chance

to begin mobilization for difficulty in Jammu. It was clear that every one of these

groups was motivated by petty political interests. The disruptive agenda seemed to

work in the interests of every party and each one of them milked the opportunity,

unmindful of how badly this was vitiating the atmosphere.

In 2003 SK Sinha took over as governor of Jammu and Kashmir, shortly after

the PDP’s Mufti Mohammad Sayeed became chief minister in November 2002,

supported by a coalition of allies, including the Congress. As a Hindu, Sinha also

automatically became chairman of the shrine board. In 2004, due to changes in the

stellar calendar, the yatra was extended by a few weeks. But Sinha decided to make this

a regular feature, acting in direct breach of the Sengupta recommendations which

formed the very basis of the board’s conception.

In 2005 Sinha and Mufti were engaged in a controversy over the yatra’s

extension after Sinha proposed that the duration of the yatra be extended to three

months. Mufti was well aware of the implications of the proposed move, both from the

security and the environmental point of view; his opposition to Sinha also stemmed

from concerns about Raj Bhavan’s interfering in administrative matters and counter-

insurgency networking. At last, after a few Congress ministers came out in Sinha’s

support and threatened to resign over the issue, the centre intervened and Mufti

partially yielded to the demands, agreeing to the duration of the yatra being extended to

two months.

The functioning of the board was not transparent, nor could the governor, who

took asylum in his constitutional position, be held responsible. When queries regarding

the Amarnath shrine board came up in the Legislative Assembly last winter Raj Bhavan

refused to provide any information in this regard. And ever since Sinha took charge of

things the SASB has been mired in controversy. From the yatra’s duration becoming a

bone of contention in 2005 to the melting lingam the same year. The next year the

shrine board was accused of having an artificial ice lingam installed in the cave after

procuring ice in bulk from New Delhi. The board deprived of the charge although it

admitted to the presence of the artificial ice lingam. An investigation commission under

a retired high court judge that was appointed to probe the issue bailed Sinha and the

SASB out even as its findings left much unsolved. Nevertheless, the melting lingam

appalled many yatra and reports of it being tampered with sent many pilgrims packing.

So this year when it was decided that 800 kanals of forest land would be

transferred to the board, eyebrows were logically raised. Sinha’s entire tenure as

governor of Jammu and Kashmir was marked by an intense obsession with the yatra.

He had been pursuing the land transfer matter since 2005 but the PDP had been

persistent in resisting these efforts. A high court ruling in public interest litigation had

also recommended that land should be made available to the Amarnath shrine board for

the creation of temporary facilities for the yatra. After the Congress took over the reins

of power in November 2005, with Ghulam Nabi Azad in charge, the issue became a

sore point between the party and their ally, the PDP, at several cabinet meetings. The

initial proposal was to ‘acquire’ 3,600 kanals of land for the formation of facilities,

including sheds and toilets, for the pilgrims. In fact, even before the land transfer was

Okayed in May 2008, Sinha was looking to spread his wings with a fresh proposal to

take over control of Sonamarg and Pahalgam from the development authorities in the

two hill resorts. Both tourist resorts serve as base camps for the Amarnath pilgrimage.

Sinha’s increasing demands were making the Kashmiris increasingly insecure.

It is not known whose agenda Sinha was pursuing. But that he had the partial if

not full backing of the centre all along was fairly evident, even as power changed hands

from a BJP-led NDA government to a Congress-led UPA government in New Delhi.

Despite Mufti Mohammad Sayeed’s objections and a prolonged confrontation in 2005

over the yatra’s duration, the then chief minister was ultimately forced to give in to

Sinha’s demands at the centre’s insistence. By this time the Congress was in the saddle

in New Delhi. After Ghulam Nabi Azad took over as chief minister of the coalition

government, talk was rife in official circles that Azad was using Sinha as a

counterweight against Mufti. But how does the constitutional head of a state become

such a superpower without the backing of someone at the power centre? For three

years, right up to March 2008, the PDP had resisted all efforts to transfer the land to the

SASB, as is evident from reports about confrontations between the coalition members

on the issue. What happened between March and May 2008 to prompt the PDP to

abandon its stand, this moreover at the far end of Sinha’s career?

By June 19, violent protests, brutally dealt with, had begun in the Kashmir valley.

On June 27, a Friday, a complete bandh was observed in the valley to oppose both the

transfer of land and the killing of two persons in police firing during protests in

downtown Srinagar. At Friday afternoon prayers in various mosques across Kashmir

imams and separatist leaders exhorted people to gather in public protest against the land

transfer. Thousands of people all over the valley descended on the streets. In Srinagar

alone, the summer capital of the state, more than one lakh people took part in various

peaceful demonstrations. In view of the earlier deaths in police firing, the police and

security forces had perhaps decided to avoid any direct argument with the protesters

and allowed them to assemble freely.

On June 25, NN Vohra took over as the new governor of Jammu and Kashmir.

A few days later, on June 28, the PDP pull out of the coalition government, leaving a

one-legged Congress at the rudder. The next day Vohra wrote to the chief minister,

saying that the SASB was not interested in pursuing the land transfer if the state

government could give guarantee that it would provide suitable facilities for the yatra.

Two days later the cabinet of a minority government met to cancel the land transfer

order. But the Congress government failed to offer any clarification, either for its initial

order on the land transfer or the consequent need for its cancellation. Because the

Congress was busy politicizing the issue and busy getting even with the PDP, both

washing their dirty linen in public, the government had no explanations to offer the

people, either in Kashmir or Jammu, the constituency that the Congress had been

eyeing. This seems to have acted as a catalyst for the agitation in the state’s winter

capital.

The cancellation of the land transfer order had an adverse fallout in the Jammu

region where the sangh parivar, encouraged by its adviser Lal Krishna Advani, was

already up in arms against what they had begun to call ‘surrendering to separatists and

anti-nationals’. It took three days for Congress ministers to respond to the agitation in

Jammu where they adopted a more diffident position, claim that the land had been

transferred because the former governor wanted it but the transfer order had been

cancelled because the new governor didn’t. Two days later the chief minister, Ghulam

Nabi Azad, addressed a quick press conference where he insisted that ‘this was a win-

win situation for Jammu’. The lack of any clarification about what the land transfer

signified, what its repercussions would have been, why it was opposed in the Kashmir

valley and how the cancellation of the order would impact or not impact the yatra,

created conditions conducive to the fertility of Sangh parivar propaganda, something

that these groups had long been waiting for. Azad’s remarks on the day the land

transfer order was cancelled – that the agitation in Kashmir was against a non-issue –

itself legitimized the agitation in Jammu where demands were made for revocation of

the cancellation of the prior order i.e. restoring the land to the SASB.

As the Kashmiri protests grow wider and more violent, the People's Democratic

Party (PDP) said that it would withdraw support to the Indian National

Congress (INC)-led state government if it did not cancel the land transfer agreement.

Though the land transfer was revoked (after the PDP withdrew its support), the crisis

deepened further when the PDP didn't lend support to the state government even after

the revocation. Meanwhile, the Ghulam Nabi Azad's marginal government determined

to step-down on 7 July 2008. The act of PDP when it withdraws its support to Indian

National Congress was the cause of split between the two parties and soon after the

elections of October 2008 Congress joined hands with National Conference and form

the new coalition government. However PDP emerged as the strongest opposition party

of NC in the valley. The People's Democratic Party still dominate the region with so

much support of people in Kashmir. It was observed in the Panchayati elections that

were held recently in 2011 that, PDP is strong at the grass root level in Kashmir as it

dominated the whole of Kashmir by huge support from the people. Currently as

opposition party of the state it is dominate the policies of the state government

continuously.

Conclusion

The above study shows that the coalition governments clearly reflect the hung

parliaments became the norm of the Jammu and Kashmir because of fragmentation in

political parties has demonstrated a shocking lack of ability to create enduring

coalitions. However the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Congress coalition had

ended on a bloody note and the state stood divided on communal and regional lines.

The wounds of 2008 are fresh in the minds of the people.

During the Congress-PDP coalition (2002-2008), there was a common

minimum programme, but that was implemented in a partisan manner. The PDP did

what it had promised and the Congress did what it felt was best for it. Then Congress

CM Ghulam Nabi Azad (2005-2008) went beyond the recommendations of the Wazir

Commission report. He set up eight districts in the state, four each in the Valley and

Jammu region, while the recommendations were only for four new districts, Bandipora

Samba, Reasi and Kishtwar. Now, that has become the headache. The equality has

created inequality.

The performance of the People’s Democratic Part - Congress coalition

government in Jammu and Kashmir was dismal and disappointing; Congress party will

have to pay a heavy price in the state as it badly let down the aspirations of people of

Jammu and Ladakh regions to please its pro-autonomy and communal masters in the

Valley. The Congress enjoys power in the state since November 5, 2002, because of

Jammu and Ladakh region but instead of fulfilling the promises it held out in 2002 and

2008 elections, the party acted as the first of the pro-self-rule PDP and then the pro-

autonomy Congress.

The coalition government has failed miserably to deliver on any front and also

took to task the Congress for its failure to undertake the acute unemployment problem

in Jammu province and its failure to empower the refugees. The party workers to fan

out across the state to expose not only the misdeeds of the People’s Democratic Party-

Congress coalition government but also the politics of trick indulged in by the Congress

during the past years.

Although the agitation in Kashmir began sometime in the third week of June 2008,

simmering discontent over the transfer of land to the shrine board has been brewing for

years. The PDP was then a partner in the state’s Congress-led coalition government.

PDP leader and then deputy chief minister, Muzaffar Hussain Baig, while justifying the

diversion of land as a temporary move to enable the creation of facilities for pilgrims

also asserted that the Congress had been blackmailing the PDP into agreeing to the land

transfer. The Congress responded by supporting the transfer of land, hopeful, in the

run-up to the state Assembly elections, to reap the harvest of votes in Jammu. Its main

adversary in the Hindu-dominated region, the BJP, also joined in the chorus. In the

valley, the National Conference jumped into the fray, blaming the PDP for the

turnabout.

After the Congress took over the reins of power in November 2005, with Ghulam

Nabi Azad in charge, the issue became a sore point between the party and their ally, the

PDP, at several cabinet meetings. Ghulam Nabi Azad took over as chief minister of the

coalition government; talk was rife in official circles that Azad was using Sinha as a

counterweight against Mufti. But how does the constitutional head of a state become

such a superpower without the backing of someone at the power centre? For three

years, right up to March 2008, the PDP had resisted all efforts to transfer the land to the

SASB, as is evident from reports about confrontations between the coalition members

on the issue.

A few days later, on June 28, the PDP pulled out of the coalition government,

leaving a one-legged Congress at the helm. The next day Vohra wrote to the chief

minister, saying that the SASB was not interested in pursuing the land transfer if the

state government could give assurance that it would provide suitable facilities for the

yatra. Two days later the cabinet of a minority government met to cancel the land

transfer order. But the Congress government failed to offer any explanation, either for

its initial order on the land transfer or the subsequent need for its cancellation. Because

the Congress was busy politicizing the issue and busy getting even with the PDP, both

washing their dirty line in public, the government had no explanations to offer the

people, either in Kashmir or Jammu, the constituency that the Congress had been

eyeing.

As the Kashmiri protests grew wider and more violent, the People's Democratic

Party (PDP) said that it would withdraw support to the Indian National

Congress (INC)-led state government if it did not revoke the land transfer agreement.

Though the land transfer was revoked (after the PDP withdrew its support), the crisis

deepened further when the PDP didn't lend support to the state government even after

the revocation. Meanwhile, the Ghulam Nabi Azad's minority government decided

to step-down on 7 July 2008. The act of PDP when it withdraws its support to Indian

National Congress was the cause of split between the two parties and soon after the

elections of October 2008 Congress joined hands with National conference and form

the new coalition government. However PDP emerged as the strongest opposition party

of NC in the valley.

The People’s Democratic Party and the Indian National Congress Party

Government in 2002 to 2008 documented many such instances of unkempt pious

promises. Similar instance relating to People’s Democratic Party, Congress can also be

cited. For example People’s Democratic Party and Indian National Congress than in

opposition in Jammu and Kashmir called for Bandh in the entire State of Jammu and

Kashmir in 2002 to 2008 on certain issues, but some months later in the same year, the

Indian National Congress (I) Government at the Centre spared no pain to condemn and

frustrate the Bharat Bandh called by the opposition parties. A Bandh can be either good

or bad. It cannot be good when it is led by Indian National Congress (I) and bad when

it is resorted to by an opposition. The People’s Democratic Party and Indian National

Congress Party lashed each other during a decade in human rights in Jammu and

Kashmir, with the People’s Democratic Party accusing and Indian National Congress.

However coalitions have still a long way to go in as far as Jammu and Kashmir

is concerned. Since there is a coalition pattern at all India level and state level

increasing role of regional parties and social groups gave birth to coalition governments

in Jammu and Kashmir.

The moot question, however, is that if the coalition partners are to play games

with each other in this manner, what is the point of having such politically fragile

alliances which hurt the people more than anything else.

Refrences

1. Amin Masoodi, Geelani, Mirwaiz meet in fresh unity move,

http://www.kashmirtimes.com/ archive/0806/080620/index.htm, June 20, 2008.

2. Asad, Bashir, Era of Coalition Politics in Jammu and Kashmir-II: Jammu,  Greater

Kashmir, January 8, 2011.

3. B.Pattabhi, Sitaramaya, The History of the Indian National Congress : Working

committee of the Congress, 1935.

4. Bruce Graham, Hindu Nationalism and Indian politics, New Delhi: Allied Publishers,

2008.

5. Chandra, Praksh, Coalition Politics in India, Anmol Publications, New Delhi, 2006.

6. Chowdhary Rekha & Nagendra Rao (2004) ‘National Conference of Jammu and

Kashmir: From Hegemonic to Competitive Politics’, Economic and Political Weekly, 3-

10 April.

7. Chowdhary Rekha (2008) ‘Electioneering in Kashmir: Overlap between Separatist and

Mainstream Political Space’, Economic and Political Weekly, 12 July.

8. Chowdhary Rekha, Electioneering in Kashmir: Overlap between Separatist and

Mainstream Political Space, Economic and Political Weekly, 12 July 2008.

9. Gauhar G.N. Election in Jammu and Kashmir, New Delhi: Manas Publication, 2002.

10. Jammu and Kashmir Assembly Elections 2002, Journal of Central Asian Studies,

University of Kashmir Vol., XII, No.1.

11. Jennings Ivor, The British Constitution, Cambridge University Press, 1962.

12. Noorani A.G. A Fractured verdict, frontline, 26 October, 8, November 2002.

13. People’s Democratic Party withdraws support from Jammu and Kashmir Government

(by Mokhtar Ahmad in Srinagar) 28 June 2008.

14. Puri Balraj, Kashmir Insurgency and After, 1/24, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi: Orient

Longman, 2008.

15. Riyaz, Masroor, Assembly to debate rights abuse, Srinagar, Greater Kashmir, 30 March

2006.

16. Self-Rule document/PDP.

17. www.greaterkashmir.com

18. www.submission.com

19. www.searchengine.com

20. www.jammu-Kashmir.com/archives2003

21. www.kashmir-information.com/legalDocs

22. viwww.kashmirtimes.com

23. http://www.powerincoalition.com