Badri Raina (Continued from Page 8) Abdullah in these years spoke repeatedly to his convictions.
Arguing that the matter of accession could not be left to the whims and fancies of rulers, but must reflect the voice of the people, he gave public expression to the popular Kashmiri view in a speech on October 4, 1947 at a historic rally (some three weeks before the tribal invasion): "We shall not believe in the two-nation theory which has spread so much poison (with reference to the communal killings that had been underway in the Punjab and in Bengal).ÿ Kashmir showed the light at this junctureÿ(Gandhi was famously to say that the only light out of the darkness of communal killings he saw was in Kashmir where not a single incident took place).ÿ When brother kills brother in the whole of Hindustan, Kashmir raised its voice of Hindu-Muslim unity.ÿ I can assure the Hindu and Sikh minorities that as long as I am alive their life and honour will be quite safe." Vide the Maharaja'sÿ proclamation of March 5, 1948, Sheikh Abdullah took over as the Prime Minister of the state, and on the next day, he told a press conference: ÿ "We have decided to work and die for India.
.We made our decision not in October last, but in 1944, when we resisted the advances of Mr.Jinnah.ÿ Our refusal was categorical.ÿ Ever since the National Conference had attempted to keep the State clear of the pernicious two-nation theory while fighting the world's worst autocracy ( The Statesman, 7 March, 1948)." On December 3, at a function of the Gandhi Memorial College at Jammu: "Kashmiris would rather die following the footsteps of Gandhiji than accept the two-nation theory.ÿ We want to link the destiny of Kashmir with India because we feel that the ideal before India and Kashmir is one and the same." Those ideals-secularism, democracy, end to feudal landlordship-became the basis for the adoption of the "provisional accession of the State to India" by the National Conference in the same month of October.
The Betrayal Althoughÿ Accession vide Article 370ÿ which conferred a "special status" on Jammu & Kashmir had, as stated above, received approval both from Patel and Shyama Prasad Mukerjee,ÿ a new situation was to develop as the Abdullah government in the State launched the New Kashmir Manifesto, ÿbedrocked, among extraordinarily progressiveÿ pronouncements-equal status of women in education and employmentÿ being butÿ one- ÿon the promise of giving land to those who tilled it.
Thus, disregarding Clause 6 of the Instrument of Accessionÿ ("Nothing in this Instrument shall empower the Dominion Legislature to make any law for this State authorizing the compulsory acquisition of land for any purpose,"ÿ and should land be thus needed, "I will at their request acquire the land"), Abdullah declared a maximum land ceiling of 22.75 acres, set up a Land Reforms Commission, and set about distributing surplus land thus acquired to those who actually were tillers on the soil.ÿ Abdullah was to rub home the point that such land reforms would never have been possible in a feudal Pakistan.
This was trouble royal.
Most of the land then was in possession of Hindu Dogras, and most of the tillers were Muslim Kashmiris.
Thus it came to be that the material loss of landholdings was sought to be converted into aÿ communal question vide an opposition now to Article 370ÿ by a newly organised forum called the Praja Parishad which came to be led by the very Mukherjee who had been a willing party to the adoption of the Article as a member of the Union Cabinet.
Under stipulations of the "special status," Jammu & Kashmir had been granted to form its own Constituent Assembly.ÿ When elections to the CA took place in 1951, candidates picked by Abdullah's National Conference won all 75 seats.
The Assembly met on October 31, 1951.ÿ On November 5, Abdullah outlined the major agenda before it: To frame a Constitution for Kashmir;ÿ To decide on the fate of the royal Dynasty; To decide whether there should be any compensation paid to those who had lost their land through the Land Abolition Act; To "declare its reasoned conclusion regarding accession." Abdullah noted: "The real character of a State is revealed in its Constitution.
The Indian Constitution has set before the country the goal of a secular democracy based upon justice, freedom and equality for all without distinction.
This is the bedrock of modern democracy.ÿ This should meet the argument that the Muslims of Kashmir cannot have security in India, where the large majority of the population are Hindus.ÿ Any unnatural cleavage between religious groups is the legacy of imperialism.
.The Indian Constitution has amply and finally repudiated the concept of a religious State which is a throwback to medievalism.
.The national movement in our State naturally gravitates towards these principles of secular democracy." And, on Pakistan: ÿ"The most powerful argument that can be advanced in her favour is that Pakistan is a Muslim State, and, a big majority of our people being Muslims the State must accede to Pakistan.ÿ This claim of being a Muslim State is of course only a camouflage.ÿ It is a screen to dupe the common man, so that he may not see clearly that Pakistan is a feudal State in which a clique is trying by these methods to maintain itself in power.
.Right-thinking men would point out that Pakistan is not an organic unity of all the Muslims in this subcontinent.
It has, on the contrary, caused the dispersion of Indian Muslims for whom it was claimed to have been created (a perception first voiced by Maulana Azad in a prescient interview given to the Covert ÿmagazine in 1946, a year before Partition)" Abdullah considered the third option of Independence (Kashmir as an "Eastern Switzerland"), and concluded as follows: ÿ"I would like to remind you that from August 15 (the day of Indian Independence) to October 22, 1947 (when the tribal invasion began) our State was Independent and the result was that our weakness was exploited by the neighbour with invasion.ÿ What is the guarantee that in future too we may not be victims of a similar aggression." All that notwithstanding, the Hindu right-wing assault began also to gather force, as it launched the Jana Sangh (precursor of today's Bharatiya Janata Party, the BJP) in 1951-the same year as theÿ establishment of the Cosntituent Assembly in the State.ÿ And its leader became Shyama Prasad Mukerjee, with the RSS lending two of its leaders for support, namely Atal Bihari Vajpai and L.K.Advani.
As stated earlier, stung by the redistribution of landholdings, it sought to make the terms of the Accession the issue, and defying the democratic-federal principles enshrined both in the Constitution of India and in their reflection in the trust reposed thereof by Abdullah, it announced a programme ostensibly aimed to strengthen national unity.ÿ At its first session, it called for: An education system based on "Bhartiya culture" (read Hinduism); The use of Hindi in schools (in full knowledge that, other than Kashmiri, ÿÿ Urdu was the language predominantly used by educated Kashmiri ÿ Muslims; indeed, from about the first decade of the twentieth century, the wholly artificial cleavage between Hindi and Urdu had begun to be deployed by communalists on either side to press their claims toÿ "true" national allegiance; The denial of any special privileges to minorities; Full integration of Jammu & Kashmir into the Indian Union.
On the other side, in letters exchanged over a period of time between Abdullah and Nehru, the shape of an agreement between the State and the Union was taking shape.
That came to be called the Delhi Agreement (1952).ÿ Itÿ stated: Commitment to Article 370 That the State Legislature would be empowered to confer special rights on "state subjects" (a right that had been won through the anti-Maharaja struggles of 1927 and 1932-a form of privilege restricted to permanent residents of the State in ÿproperty ÿownership and jobs); That Kashmir would have its own flag, although subordinate to the Union Tricolour; That the Sadar-e-Riyasat (later on Governor of the State) would be ÿ elected by the State Assembly, but would take office with the ÿÿ concurrence of the President of India; That the Supreme Court of India would, "for the time being," have only appellate jurisdiction in Jammu & Kashmir; That an internal Emergency could only be applied with the concurrence of the State Legislature.
Late in the same year, the riposte to this from the Hindu right-wing came in the form of the following slogan-one around which the Jana Sangh sought to mount its attack on the terms of Accession.ÿ And the slogan was: Ek desh mein do Vidhan, Ek desh mein do Nishaan, Ek desh mein do Pradhan, Nahi challege, nahi challege.
(We will not accept two Constitutions, two flags, and two prime ministers ÿÿÿÿ in one and the same country.) This communalist right-wing putsch against the principles on which the State had accepted to accede to India began to find resonance also within section of the Congress Party.ÿ To Nehru's great chagrin but helplessness, his candidate for the first President of India, Rajagopalachari, was rejected in favour of Rajendra Prasad (who was soon to lock horns with Nehru on the Hindu Code Bill, and to go to the Somnath Mandir,once ravaged by Ghazni, among many other chieftans of old,ÿ to effect renovations on State expense-a move wholly in conflict with the secular foundations of the Republic).
Other collateral tendencies began also to surface, such asÿ bespoke scant regard on behalf of the Union of India for the federative principles.ÿ In his despondent letter to Maulana Azad, dated 16 July, 1953, Abdullah complained about the usurpations underway, in contravention of what terms had been agreed upon: "We the people of Kashmir, regard the promises and assurances of the representatives of the government of India, such as Lord Mountbatten and Sardar Patel, as surety for the assistance rendered by us in securing the signatures of Maharaja of Kashmir on the Instrument of Accession, which made it clear that the internal autonomy and sovereignty of the Acceding States shall be maintained except in regard to three subjects which will be under the Central government (namely, Defence, Communications, and External Affairs)." And: "When the Constituent Assembly of India proceeded to frame the Union Constitution there arose before it the question of the State.
Our Representatives took part in the last sessions of the Assembly and presented their point of view in the light of basic principles on which the National Conference had supported State's Accession to India.
Our view-point drew appreciation and Article 370 of the Constitution cameÿ into being determining our position under the new Constitution." Abdullah pointed out that although it had been agreed that the "Accession involves no financial obligations on the States" such demands were being made; and "the changes effectedÿ on several occasions in relationship between India and Kashmir greatly agitated the public opinion." And on the other source ofÿ perceived menace: "A big party in India (the Jana Sangh) still forcefully demands merger of the State with India.ÿ In the State itself Praja Parishad is threatening to resort to direct action if the demand for the States' complete merger with India is not conceded." -(To be Concluded) *(This article was first published in ZNet) About us | Advertise | Other Publications | Subscriptions | Weather | Letters | Send Mail Disclaimer: Information is being made available at this site purely as a measure of public facilitation.
While every effort has been made to ensure that the information hosted on this website is accurate CHAIRMAN: VED BHASIN Kashmir Times Group of Publications Edited, printed and published by Prabodh Jamwal Editor-in-Chief, The Kashmir Times, Residency Road, Jammu, J&K, INDIA.
Executive Editor: Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal E-Mail: vbhasin@sancharnet.in, jmt_prabodh@sancharnet.in