Article 370, again

Narendra Modi re-opens a debate stuck in the 1950s

Speeches by the Bharatiya Janata Party's prime ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi, usually set a cat amongst the pigeons. Mr Modi's latest feint - and it is no more than that, really - is his suggestion that the country should revisit Article 370 of the Constitution, which gave the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) special status in 1952. Almost every major political force other than the Shiv Sena and the Akali Dal has not reacted well to this suggestion. Indeed, even within the BJP, Mr Modi's suggestion of a relook has become controversial - the party had effectively dropped Article 370 from its agenda over a decade ago. By framing it as a "discussion", Mr Modi is in fact calling for the end of a consensus closed even within his own party.

What Mr Modi wants discussed is whether this status has helped the people of the state. The answer can only be found in performance indicators. The statistical appendix to the Economic Survey of 2012-13 shows that states comparable to J&K in terms of similar population sizes are Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, and Himachal Pradesh. The literacy rate in J&K in 2011-12 was 69 per cent; but, in Chhattisgarh, it was 71 per cent, in Uttarakhand 80 per cent, in Himachal Pradesh, 84 per cent, and in Jharkhand, 68 per cent. The infant mortality rates for the same year were as follows: J&K, male 40 per cent and female 41 per cent; Chattisgarh, male 47 per cent and female 50 per cent; Uttarakhand male 34 per cent female 38 per cent; Himachal Pradesh, male 36 per cent and female 39 per cent; and Jharkhand, male 36 per cent and female 43 per cent. Where access to safe drinking water (tap/ handpump/ tubewell) is concerned, the numbers are: J&K, rural 70 per cent and urban 96 per cent; Chhattisgarh, rural 84 per cent and urban 94 per cent; Uttarakhand, rural 90 per cent urban 99 per cent; Himachal Pradesh, rural 93 per cent and urban 98 per cent; and Jharkhand, rural 54 per cent and urban 78 per cent. Within this, it would be interesting to see how regions of Jammu, Leh and the Valley have performed to see which of the three is dragging the state down - at present such data are not available. Clearly, J&K's pro-status quo politicians do have some uncomfortable questions to answer. In addition, it is worth noting that many major laws, including those that empower India's citizens, routinely do not apply to Kashmiris as a product of the separateness embodied in Article 370.

That said the fundamental questions in this Article 370 debate are these: is it a pro-Muslim provision as the BJP's foundational thesis has it, or is it something that is needed on an ongoing basis for the unity and integrity of India? Neither is relevant any more. Whatever the BJP's founder, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, may have believed, Article 370 was not guided by communal considerations; equally, the accession of the state to the Indian union is no longer as doubtful as it was in the 1950s. This means looking backwards for the validation or otherwise of Article 370 may not yield anything useful. More pertinently, a discussion based on an assessment of whether the provision has helped and will be helpful in the future will be a more useful exercise.