Author: Vijay Dhar
Publication: The Deccan
Herald
Date: July 17, 2000
I have been amazed and
somewhat shocked at the recent statements made on the proposed Kashmir
autonomy by political leaders in the State and other parts of the country.
Have we bes-towed the
stature of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah on Farooq Abdullah?Why is it when Farooq
Abdullah sneezes, the leaders in Delhi catch a cold? The death of a great
leader Shyamaprasad Mukherjee becomes a matter of discussion after 45 years,
even while most of us ask "Shyamaprasad who?"
Let me first give the
benefit of doubt to Farooq Abdullah. He is a politician to the core
and any politician in his position would like to take the initiative on
the autonomy issue of Jammu and Kashmir. He waited for almost a year.
Delhi knew what he was doing. The chief secretary of Jammu and Kashmir
officially sent a report to the Union Home Ministry for comments.
The Home Ministry did not consider it important enough to give suggestions.
When the Assembly session was called, everyone in Delhi knew the agenda.
Again, there was no comment.
Everyone however went berserk when the bill was passed and Union Home Minister
L K Advani made a great comment that Parliament would deliberate on the
bill and on the issue of autonomy.Before I am considered partisan, I would
like to remind the leaders about a few facts of history. The Kashmir
Constitution came into effect in 1939 under Maharaja Hari Singh; we should
not confuse this with 1953.
The first two Cabinet
ministers were appointed in 1939; they were Mirza Afzal Beg and Wazir Ganga
Ram. There was no change in this Constitution in 1947 when the accession
took place, by which communication, defence and external affairs became
the prerogative of the Central government. Most of the 1939 Constitution
continued till 1957 when the People's Assembly sat.
The first Delhi Agreement
of 1952 between Sheikh Abdullah and Nehru had no bearing on the 1939 Constitution,
and the arrest of Sheikh Abdullah in 1953 was under the provisions of the
1939 Constitution. I will quote from a letter written to the late
D P Dhar, head of committee for drafting the Constitution in 1956, by the
then Prime Minister of India, Jawahar-lal Nehru (this Constitution was
formally adopted by the State Assembly that was constituted in 1957):
"You will remember that
when we met here in Delhi, I gave you a broad analysis of the situation
in Kashmir as I saw it, it was and is easy to make a list of the failures
and mistakes of any person and there can be little doubt that any number
of mistakes have been committed in Kashmir, or for the matter of that in
India as a whole, we can all be wise after the event. The point is
now to disentangle ourselves from the jumble of petty facts and controversies
and see broad features of the situation."Forty-three years have gone and
the great thinkers on Kashmir always have become wiser after the event.
But each event took a heavy toll.
To quote recent history,
the late Indira Gandhi, who made amends in 1975 to the wrong done to Sheikh
Saheb, committed the same mistake by removing Farooq Abdullah in 1984.
I was privy to a meeting organised by me between Indira Gandhi and P N
Haksar in January 1984. Haksar advised her not to remove Farooq,
as it would be another setback for the State. His advice was the
same as that of B K Nehru, the then governor of Jammu and Kashmir.
The advice carried on for six months but then B K Nehru had to be removed
as governor.
When Farooq Abdullah
was removed, the excuse was that 36 temples were denigrated and the minorities
were not safe. The same Delhi government later rewarded a governor,
Jagmohan, under whom the entire Hindu population had to leave their homes
and become refugees in their own country. Then it was Rajiv Gandhi's
turn to make amends, and a Rajiv-Farooq accord came into being, another
Delhi declaration. But Farooq Abdullah was naive and started seeing
through his ears: he began to believe everything he heard. In 1990,
the clock was set back.
All the accords were
forgotten. By that time, people needed the smallest persuasions to
come out on the streets which they did. The new governor, Jagmohan,
did not realise this and in a fit of desperation destroyed, the umbilical
cord which was holding Kashmir to the rest of the country. The State
Assembly was dissolved. However we are talking of 2000, a decade
later, and we are talking of Farooq Abdullah. He is politically far
more mature now. In any case, one can blame him for anything, but
one cannot fault or doubt his being an Indian.
For the first time, all
Indian political parties contested the last election. It does not
matter what percentage of votes each party got; what is significant is
that all the political parties, including the BJP, secured some votes.
These changes should reflect in any decision of discussion in the future
of Jammu and Kashmir. Instead of finding fault in individuals, let
us look for a broader approach which will bring peace to Kashmir.
I heard one comment from
a former Prime Minister who advocated that all States should have more
autonomy to decide their destinies (of course under the Indian Constitution).
When he made this statement, it was considered wisdom. But when a
Kashmiri leader says something like this, it is considered secession by
the same ex-Prime Minister! We have to grow up and we have to see the changes
taking place in the world.
Someone tall enough and
bold enough should accept that we have made a lot of mistakes in Kashmir
and we need to make amends and convince the Kashmiri that he belongs to
this great country.After 50 years of claiming Kashmir as an integral part
of India, I feel shocked that people should suggest that because of Article
370, non-Kashmiris cannot buy immovable property in Jammu and Kashmir.
Please understand that
Article 370 became the Instrument of Accession and not a clause for buying
and selling property. This article was accepted by the then Parliament.
It authorised the Centre to make or change laws only on three subjects:
defence, external affairs and communication. Article 4 of the Instrument
of Accession specifically allows that if the State wants to change any
law, it can recommend the change to the Centre.
We should also know that
under Article 370, the laws made by the Indian Parliament in regard to
defence, communication, and external affairs are applicable to Jammu and
Kashmir State after they are ratified by the J&K State Assembly.
The State of J&K is the only State in the country which has the power
to veto the prospective laws made by Indian Parliament for extension to
the State.
This itself is extraordinary
autonomy given to the State in 1952. We take advantage of the fact
that the Maharaja acceded to India, and this was final, but we forget that
the Maharaja had given standstill agreement to Pakistan relating to the
maintenance of communication, post, and telegraph through the respective
territories. Pakistan continued the agreement on August 15, 1947.
A similar standstill
agreement was offered to India but negotiations with India could not be
completed by the time Pakistan broke the agreement, created a blockade
and sent raiders to Kashmir. The proxy war started in 1947.
An anomaly needs to be noted. The State of Jammu and Kashmir acceded
to India, including the area called "Azad Kashmir".
How could the government
of India return to Pakistan areas taken during the 1971 war which belonged
to J&K? It may be interesting to compare Article 370 of the Indian
Constitution to Article 257 of the Pakistan Constitution. Pakistan
Occupied Kashmir is administered as a subject colony or vassal through
the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs in Lahore. We should try and understand
that the present autonomy bill passed by the State Legislature does not
mean that the State of Jammu and Kashmir wants to secede from India.
The Chief Minister has
reiterated that Jammu and Kashmir State has been and will always remain
a part of India. The State has a different relationship to the Union,
so there should be no confusion that other States may demand the same and
the country will disintegrate. The other States do not fall under
Article 370.
Why is there a confusion
that if Kashmir is given what is its due under the framework of the Indian
Constitution, the country is going to disintegrate? The Constitution of
India is not that weak. Please understand that Kashmir is today asking
for what was given to the State. The Cabinet rejected the autonomy
resolution of the J&K State.
I would like to use an
old phrase of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah: "Do you want a few individuals
to parrot the name of India or do you want the people of the State (to
believe in India)?" A discussion would have been better instead of this
outright rejection. If 48 amendments have been made to the State
Constitution, re-accept 40 and maybe make adjustments in eight. Let
the people feel that there is a response to their sentiment, and they are
not treated in the same way as Pakistan treats "Azad Kashmir."
We must talk to all cross-sections
of people within and outside the State and form a consensus and put that
consensus in front of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, who would then get
the feeling of being owned. Make the people of Jammu and Kashmir
understand that what they may want is not possible. Individuals like
Farooq Abdullah do not matter in the long run. It is the State and
the country which is of prime importance.
Why tell the people of
Jammu and Kashmir on the one hand that Article 370 gives you a special
status, and on the other hand, tell them we do not care for this status?
Absolute truth takes time to be recognised, and more time to be accepted.
Kashmir calls for a benevolent exposition in the right perspective.
Laurie Richard's quote is very appropriate: "Great is truth and shall prevail,
therefore must we weep and wail."
(Vijay Dhar is an analyst
of Kashmir affairs)
