Decoding PC On J&K, Etc: He Is Pitching To Become Rahul’s Manmohan in 2019

Is Palaniappan Chidambaram positioning himself as the new, soft, liberal and modern face of India that the Gandhi dynasty could conceivably accept as a future Prime Minister in UPA-3, if that comes to be? This is the impression one gets from his recent writings and a Karan Thapar interview yesterday (20 July) on India Today TV. His opinions on issues ranging from Kashmir to GST and Rahul Gandhi’s somnolence in parliament seem to be aimed as much at burnishing his own liberal credentials as tipping a hat towards the dynasty’s need to be sure of his loyalties.

His Indian Express column is titled “Standing Guard”, which is exactly what Manmohan Singh was doing on behalf of Sonia Gandhi, protecting her interests while trying to do his job as proxy Prime Minister.

The Thapar interview focused a lot on Jammu & Kashmir and the current escalation of violence after the killing of terrorist Burhan Wani. This allowed Chidambaram to move closer to a “secular-left” position, which is just a hop, step and jump away from the JNU position on Kashmir and “azaadi”‎. This is exactly what the jholawallahs surrounding Sonia Gandhi and Rahul’s coterie would want. Chidambaram the economic liberaliser will now play a recessed role.

Responding to Thapar’s question about the Kashmiri war-cry of “azaadi”, Chidambaram rightly asked what this word means. But Thapar did not ask him to clarify what it meant to Chidambaram either.

Disappointingly for the viewer, Thapar lobbed full toss queries at Chidambaram who then happily hit them out of the park. No answer by Chidambaram drew even a hard supplementary question from Thapar, leaving his interviewee smiling beatifically all through. It was as like an awestruck chela asking questions of the Guru, with the latter’s answers drawing appreciative nods. The only exclamation missing from Thapar’s responses were “Wow!”.

In his recent Indian Express columns and interviews, Chidambaram has taken the BJP head-on, criticised the government for lack of growth (even though he was partly responsible for the slowdown), ring-fenced the Gandhis from being blamed for motivated changes in the Ishrat Jahan affidavit, defended the growth-retarding Land Acquisition Act, talked about Rahul Gandhi being a hands-on politician despite pictures of him asleep during at least two parliament debates, and - most importantly - taken on a super-soft attitude to Kashmir.

Chidambaram has batted repeatedly for removing the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, ending the death penalty, and indirectly blamed both the defence ministry and the home ministry (after he left the job) for not adopting his soft line on Kashmir. As for the UPA-2’s economic mismanagement, he has covertly blamed Pranab Mukherjee ‎by claiming he did all the right things when he became FM again in 2012, forgetting that the slide into high fiscal deficits began when he abandoned the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act in 2008 - well before the global financial crisis.

Here are some of the things he told Thapar, and the questions the latter didn’t ask. Chidambaram’s statements are followed by my comments in italics, including the follow-up questions that needed asking.

Chidambaram said: “We have ignored the grand bargain (under which J&K acceded to India). I think we broke our promises and faith (to the people of Kashmir). What is necessary is to give an assurance that the grand bargain will be fully honoured. Let them frame their own laws as much as possible as long as it doesn’t conflict with the constitution.”

Comment: So you agree the Nehru, Indira and Rajiv, apart from your own government, broke the bargain with the Kashmiris? What, according to you was the grand bargain, and why is it only Kashmir that could be given this deal and not other Indian states? No law passed by parliament is applicable to J&K even now, unless accepted by the J&K assembly. So what more laws can Kashmir be allowed to pass that will be applicable only that state?

Chidambaram said: “We have to assure (Kashmiris) that we will respect identity, history, culture, religion...we are preaching Sri Lanka the same thing (on devolution of powers). We cannot allow the situation to continue, otherwise we will descend into chaos...we are defending the land, but ignoring the people...”.

Comment: Which identity of Kashmir is not being respected? When every Indian state has the right to preserve its culture, how is Kashmiri identity being diluted by the rest of India, especially when no non-Kashmiri can buy land or settle in Kashmir? And can culture be protected fully from change by building walls around Kashmir? And what is the religious identity we need to protect? The fight earlier was for Kashmir’s syncretic culture, which includes its Sufi and Kashmiri Saivist roots. Is all this to be sacrificed on the altar of Islamism that has now driven the Pandits out of the Valley? If Kashmir can keep the rest of India out in the name of protecting its culture, why stop Raj Thackeray from keeping Biharis out of Mumbai?

Chidambaram said: “The ruling alliance itself is a provocation for the Kashmiris. The people of Kashmir loath the BJP’s ascendancy. Mufti Mohammad Sayeed made a serious mistake in allying with BJP.”

Comment: Since when did Kashmir become only about the Valley’s Muslims? The state is called Jammu & Kashmir, and Jammu gave a clear mandate to the BJP. The PDP-BJP was the only combination with the mandate to rule Jammu & Kashmir. So where is the affront to Kashmir? Unless you are saying the Valley has a veto on Jammu’s politics. If Sayeed made a mistake, why didn’t Congress and National Conference offer unconditional support to the PDP to run a government, if the idea was to keep the BJP out?

Chidambaram said: “Kashmir requires a unique political solution.”

Comment: Kashmir already has a unique status under article 370. How much more unique can a solution be for one state? If Kashmir is given even more powers, why deny it to the Akalis in Punjab or the Dravidian parties in Tamil Nadu or, in fact, any state in India? The only logical argument is that all Indian states need more powers so that India becomes a federation where state and central powers don’t conflict. Kashmir has no claims to something special beyond what it has already got. While Kashmiris may have a special attachment to article 370, the best way to abolish it is to make the federal structure stronger, with lower centralisation of powers with Delhi.

Chidambaram said: “When I was the Home Minister, 10,000 troops were moved out of Kashmir. The defence establishment was totally opposed to all that we proposed. We proposed that security forces should be moved to the border areas. We proposed that AFSPA should be amended. There was hardly any support to my proposal to repeal or amend AFSPA.”

Comment: Thapar did not ask whether the opposition to Chidambaram’s proposal was valid. It can be nobody’s case that the army must be permanently in charge of ensuring peace in civilian areas. When the army goes, AFSPA can go with it, for AFSPA is only applicable when the army is into civilian law and order duties. The problem is simple: the army cannot go unless you have a strong and motivated police force, something like KPS Gill’s Punjab police which ended the Khalistani militancy, ready to fill the vacuum. But as long as this does not happen, how can the army leave? Why didn’t Chidambaram ensure this before making his proposals to move the army out of civilian areas? Did he not put the cart before the horse?

Chidambaram said: “We are not opposed to GST (goods and services tax). GST is an indirect tax; no government should be allowed to use its executive powers to tinker with that. Once the modified GST bill draft comes, we may agree, or we may ask for changes. The present GST bill is flawed and that’s the reason the government is making changes in it.”

Comment: This is an unusual claim. Where is it written in the constitution that indirect taxes must not be subject to executive action, when executive action needs legislative support anyway? Chidambaram’s original argument was that the 18 percent ceiling on the GST rate must be put into the constitution, when no tax rate (beyond the insignificant professional tax) has been put into it. If taxation is the primary instrument for raising revenues to run a government, how can a specific number be put into the constitution? As for the profession tax being in the constitution, the idea was to ensure that it did not morph into another form of income tax, since this tax is paid to state governments by those who earn a salary or profession. So to compare GST with profession tax is silly, but Thapar never pointed this out.

When asked about Rahul being a misfit in politics, especially since the Congress rebels in Uttarakhand and Arunachal did not get a positive response from him, Chidambaram had this to say: “You don’t change a chief minister because of rebellions against him. We backed the CM in Uttarakhand, in Arunachal we backed the CM but then we realised that we have to change the CM. I was with Rahul Gandhi, when (Nabam) Tuki stepped down and (Pema) Khandu was elected. Rahul Gandhi was totally calm and in control of the situation in the party.”

Comment: This is mere hearsay, which no one, including Rahul, will deny. Whether Rahul was calm or not is immaterial to how he handled the internal crisis when it was happening.

Chidambaram’s take on Rahul’s sleepiness in parliament takes the cake. He said: “I haven’t seen the picture, I won’t comment on that.” And then added: “I could sit in Parliament and close my eyes; that doesn’t mean I am sleeping.”

That needs no comment. We know who that is meant to send a signal to.