 |
|
|
As a nation we do not miss any opportunity to berate those who seek
to defile or defy the Constitution of India. Indeed, great
emphasis, both moral and political, is laid upon the need to not
only swear loyalty to the Constitution but also the inviolability
of its letter and spirit. The emphasis is all the more when it
comes to defining our nationhood, geographical as well as
political; we do so by thumping the Constitution of the Republic of
India.
Those who question the very identity of the Indian nation by
defying the Constitution or violating its tenets, are labeled as
"anti-national". The less polite resort to a harsher expression,
describing the violators as "secessionists" who are guilty of
nothing less than "treason", an act defined by the OED as
"violation by a subject of allegiance to the sovereign or to the
state". Thousands of men and women were put behind bars under the
provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)
Act on the charge that they chose to commit this violation with the
help of AK-47s and bombs. How does one describe a person who is
guilty of committing a similar act through the spoken word? And
what about an entire Government that challenges the inviolability
of India's territorial integrity?
Mr Ajatshatru Singh, grandson of Maharaja Hari Singh who signed the
Instrument of Accession with the specific purpose of preventing his
princely state's forcible and bloody annexation by Pakistan, has
dropped a bombshell by announcing that the National Conference
Government headed by Dr Farooq Abdullah is not only willing to
secede territory to Pakistan, but will pass a resolution to this
effect, following it up with a referendum. Dr Abdullah, realising
the implications of his Tourism Minister's utterance, has sought to
n-minimise its impact by claiming that the callow politician has
been misquoted. He, however, has failed to offer a convincing
clarification as to what exactly did Mr Ajatshatru Singh say.
In a sense, Mr Ajatshatru Singh has merely expanded upon Dr
Abdullah's much-repeated view that the Line of Control between
India and Pakistan should be recognised as the de jure
international border and Islamabad allowed sovereign rights over
occupied Kashmir. Dr Abdullah's "practical and realistic solution"
was no "off-the-cuff remark", as he described it after airing his
appalling views at Chhindwara. In any event, any individual who
owes allegiance to a state, more so somebody who occupies public
office, does not make "off-the-cuff" remarks about the territorial
integrity of that state.
For the past three years now Dr Abdullah has been talking about
this "practical and realistic solution"; to that extent, lie has
been consistent in questioning the inviolability of the nation's
territorial integrity. Notwithstanding his contrived contriteness
after his Chhindwara statement fetched howls of protest, Dr
Abdullah reiterated his seditious "solution" in a belligerent
interview to The Indian Express. There was not even a mild word of
censure from the United Front Government of which his party is the
exalted 14th member.
Therefore, there is no reason to believe that Mr Ajatshatru Singh
was misquoted. Mr Ajatshatru Singh, who is politically naive,
jumped the gun and spilled the beans when cornered by reporters at
Chandigarh's Garden Festival. A seasoned politician would have
stuck to the subject at hand-gardening instruments, plant varieties
and the benefits of organic manure.
Scoring brownie points
What, however, is surprising is that both he and his leader, Dr
Abdullah, should be unaware of the contents of the opening pages of
the Constitution of India, the state to which they owe allegiance
by virtue of the fact that they are Indian citizens, as well as the
Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir to which they swore undying loyalty
while being sworn in as ministers. The territorial identity of the
nation, as defined by Article 1 of the Constitution of
India-"India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of
States"..."specified in the First Schedule"-includes the entire
State of Jammu & Kashmir. This Article is applicable to Jammu &
Kashmir, notwithstanding Article 370.
The Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir goes further, leaving no doubts
whatsoever about the State being an integral part of India and its
territorial identity. Defining the "relationship of the State with
the Union of India" , Article 3 of Part II says: "The State of
Jammu & Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of
India." The next Article defines the "territory of the State": "The
territory of the State shall comprise all the territories which on
the fifteenth day of August, 1947, were under the sovereignty or
suzerainty of the Ruler of the State." By working towards the
secession of that part of Jammu & Kashmir which has been in
Pakistan's illegal occupation for the past five decades, Dr
Abdullah and his Minister are prima facie guilty of violating the
sanctity of both the Constitutions. Worse, Mr Ajatshatru Singh, by
seconding Dr Abdullah's obnoxious "practical and realistic
solution", has questioned the sovereign and suzerain powers of his
grandfather; first it was Dr Karan Singh who virtually helped
Sheikh Abdullah to force the Maharaja into abdication and exile and
now it is Mr Ajatshatru Singh who has questioned the very
legitimacy of the former ruler's sovereign powers. In a sense,
this puts a question mark on Maharaja Hari Singh's actions as the
ruler of Jammu & Kashmir, including the act of his signing the
Instrument of Accession which he did on the strength of his
sovereign powers that are now sought to be cruelly denied by his
own grandson.
Had any other Chief Minister or one of his colleagues been guilty
of questioning the sanctity of the Constitution of India or the
inviolability of the nation's territorial integrity, retribution
would have been swift and pitiless. Many a State Government has
been sacked on the assumption that it will fail to "uphold the
Constitution". Ordinary citizens have been punished, and cruelly
though rightly so, for committing a similar crime. Punjab's fields
are stained with the blood of those who sought to violate the
nation's territorial integrity; a bloody battle rages in the
North-East against those who preach secession; the graveyards of
the Valley of Kashmir are littered with headstones dedicated to
those who challenged the Indian state.
Yet Dr Farooq Abdullah and Mr Ajatshatru Singh have got away
scot-free. One reason is that their thinking is shared by many in
the United Front Government, including the Prime Minister who is
willing to "make minor adjustments on Jammu & Kashmir" with
Pakistan and his Foreign Minister who is willing to make any
adjustments at any price in order to score brownie points with the
lib-left both at home and abroad.
Meanwhile, tucked away in some dusty rile on some dusty shelf of
Parliament lies a piece of paper which contains the lines, "The
State of Jammu & Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part
of India and any attempts to separate it from the rest of the
country will be resisted by all necessary means... Pakistan must
vacate the areas of the Indian State of Jammu & Kashmir, which they
have occupied through aggression..."
This piece of paper forgotten by all is the unanimous resolution
adopted by Parliament on February 22, 1994.
|
|
|