Author:
Publication: Kashmir
Sentinel
Date: July 1 - August
15, 2000
This document is excerpted
from the presidential address of Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee at the first
All India Session of Bhartiya Jana Sangh at Kanpur on December 29, 1952.
Among the post-partition
problems there are three ratters on which public attention has recently
been very much focussed. They relate to Kashmir, East Bengal and Rehabilitation.
Regarding Kashmir, our
party has made it abundantly clear that the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir
is an integral part, of India. Whatever might have been the reason for
the original references of the case to the Security, Council, events happening
during the last three years definitely indicate the need for withdrawing
the case from this body. It is clear that India can expect no justice from
the Security Council in this behalf. Although Pakistan is an aggressor
on the soil of Kashmir there has-been a strange reluctance, deliberately
pursued by some of the big powers including the UK and the USA, to stand
by India's just rights. The Constituent Assembly formed sometime ago in
Kashmir has been challenged for its non-representative character so far
as Jammu is concerned. In spite of this, Assembly should be requested to
decide the question of accession to India irrevocably. Once having decided
it, two matters will remain outstanding - one related to the future of
the Pakistani occupied area in Jammu and Kashmir, and the other the applicability
of the, Indian Constitution to this State. Regarding the former the self-respect
of India including Jammu and Kashmir demands that everything possible must
be done to recover this area from the clutches of the enemy. For this India
must be prepared for any consequences. If once we acquiesce in such forcible
occupation of our territory, our future freedom will stand seriously imperilled.
Kashmir
Regarding the other matter,
we have expressed our views unreservedly on previous occasions. We have
been misunderstood by many so-called friends and well-wishers of India
for the stand that we have taken. We firmly believe that our plea for the
full and complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India is consistent
with true nationalism and the needs for the security of India including
Kashmir. Sheikh Abdullah and others from Kashmir were party to the framing
of our Constitution which in every way guarantees equal protection to all.
No non-Moslem wants to remain separate from India. Why the majority of
Moslems in the state under Sheikh Abdullah's leadership hesitate to accept
the same Constitution as has been applied to the whole of free India? No
satisfactory explanation has been- given on this point One argument is
advanced that our Constitution provides that the application of its provisions
except with regard to defence, foreign relations and communications, will
depend on the consent of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. It has been
conveniently ignored that while proposing this special provision, the mover,
Mr Gopalswami Iyengar, himself referred to the peculiar circumstances through
which the State was then passing and also categorically stated that whatever
might be legal provision there was no doubt in the near future the State
would merge with India just as all other States had done and also accept
the carefully-prepared and democratically based Constitution of India.
It is childish, therefore, to justify the non-acceptance of India's Constitution
merely on the ground of any, temporary special provision in the Constitution
in favour of Jammu and Kashmir. An impression is gaining ground that with
our blood and money we are carving out a virtually autonomous State for
Sheikh Abdullah and his followers. The people of Jammu and Ladakh have
declared themselves in favour of full accession. If the people of Kashmir
valley think otherwise there may be even some special provision for this
'zone for the time being. We are often told that if there is any undue
pressure for the application of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir,
the Moslems of Kashmir valley may break away from India. This argument
is totally unintelligible. If our Constitution had been so devised as to
make Muslims feel nervous about their future fate or about the possibility
of their not receiving equal treatment, one could have understood the force
of this argument. When, however, that is not so, what can possibly be the
ground for this hesitation? Mr Jinnah also founded his theory of Pakistan
on the plea that the Moslem majority areas could never accept a constitution
which would give large powers to a Central government supported by a Parliament
with preponderant Hindu majority. To pander to such views in regard to
Kashmir would be grossly communal and retrograde. In spite of all this,
as I have said, we would readily agree to treat Kashmir Valley with Sheikh
Abdullah as its head in any special manner and for such time as he would
like, but Jammu and Ladakh' must be fully integrated with India according
to the wishes of their people. Let me repeat and state categorically that
I do not want Jammu and Kashmir to be partitioned. But if Sheikh Abdullah
is adamant, Jammu and Ladakh must not be sacrificed but Kashmir valley
may be a separate State within the Indian Union receiving all necessary
subventions and being created constitutionally in such manner as Sheikh
Abdullah and his advisers may wish for.
The movement started
by Praja Parishad has been grossly and deliberately misrepresented. It
is tragic that when people of an area want to identify themselves completely
with India and become one with her--whom they call their beloved mother-the
Government of India should not only stand in the way of the fulfillment
of their dream but dub them as reactionary, unpatriotic and even as friends
of Pakistan. Could one's vision be more blurred than this due only to distorted
notion of secularism and an abject submission to whatever demands that
may be put forward by Sheikh Abdullah and his friends? Mr Nehru and Sheikh
Abdullah have jointly decided to carry on a ruthless policy of repression
in Jammu. Let me declare unequivocally that repression will not solve this
impasse. The egreater the repression the more disastrous will be the results.
Do not Mr Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah know that repression did not crush
their own movements? On the other hand, it helped them enormously. Even
at this late stage I would appeal to Mr Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah to cry
a halt and not to stand on false prestige. They must open negotiations
with the present leaders of Jammu and arrive at a settlement which will
be fair and just to all. As a first step, let the Constituent Assembly
of Jammu and Kashmir once for all declare that the State has formally and
finally acceded to India. In the second place, let the Jammu and Kashmir
Assembly accept, to start with, the provisions of the Indian Constitution
relating to citizenship, fundamental rights, jurisdiction of Supreme court,
and of High Court, financial integration and emergency powers of the President.
With regard to the rest, I am sure if negotiations take place in the atmosphere
of mutual goodwill and understanding, a satisfactory settlement can be
achieved. The continuance of the present state of affairs is certainly
undesirable and it is up to Sheikh Abdullah and Mr Nehru to allay the genuine
fears of the representatives of the people of Jammu so that all may work
unitedly for the recovery of that one-third territory of Jammu and Kashmir
which, to our national disgrace, is in the hands of Pakistan today. Meanwhile
our active sympathy must be extended to all those in Jammu who are facing
bravely the wrath of the authorities and silently suffering for a noble
cause.
