This week's DNA Samwad, discusses historical Kashmir integration in detail. The panelists analyse Pandit Nehru and Maharaja Hari Singh's perspectives on Kashmir and how the politics of Kashmir revolved only around the Abdullahs and MuftisReaching out to people of Jammu and Kashmir with the promise of peace, jobs, investments and prosperity, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday expressed the hope that the region will soon come out of the negative impact of Article 370 which has given them only "separatism, terrorism, family rule and corruption".He said the measures were a historic decision of the country and told the government's detractors to tune their approach in national interest to work collectively for development of the state without looking at who had voted for or against the legislation.People of India have wholeheartedly welcomed the move. Joining our discussion on the subject were Brigadier Pramathesh Raina, retired Army official, Dr Gaurav Gadgil, assistant professor of history, Somaiyya College, Jatin Desai, member of Indo-Pak People Forum for Peace and Friendship, Rajan Khanna, chairman of Punjabi Sahitya Academy, Shakti Munshi, member, Jammu and Kashmir Study Circle, and Sunil Tambe, author. They discussed Pandit Nehru's integration of Kashmir from a historical perspective, Maharaja Hari Singh's stand on the issue, and questioned the political freedom of Kashmiris under Abdullahs and Muftis.
COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING
Shakti Munshi, Member, Jammu and Kashmir Study Circle
According to Sec 6 of Govt. of India Act 1935 amended to India Independence Act 1947 laid down two conditions for Accession of the Princely States to either the Dominion India or the dominion of Pakistan 1) Continuity with the Country to be accessed 2) Will of the Ruler of the Princely State and both these conditions were fulfilled when the Maharaja of J&K State signed the accession document on 26th Oct 1947 with India nullifying Pakistan’s claim over J&K State.
Further formalities of absolute sovereignty of the Union of India with respect to the State of J&K were completed by the proclamation signed by ruler Karan Singh on 25th Nov 1949 followed by the ratification by the Jammu & Kashmir Constituent Assembly on 15 February, 1954. Absolute sovereignty leads to clean succession of the State of Jammu &Kashmir with the Republic of India.
Talking about the UNSC 47th resolution of 1948 it was Pakistan that did not honor it by keeping its forces and occupying POJK. If we have to talk of Plebiscite mentioned in this resolution let me clarify that plebiscite does not necessarily mean a decision by direct adult franchise. It is also the will of the people by their duly elected representatives as per the election laws of the respective State. The will of the people of in J&K State was executed through the ratification of the accession of J&K to India ( on 6th Feb 1954) by the Constituent assembly of Jammu & Kashmir.
The myth of pre accession negotiation of J&K State to have its own constitution is not true. The initially plan of integration of all states to Dominion of India was that all States acceding to India would elect their own Constituent assembly members to build their own constitution which would then be incorporated into the Indian Constitution. But most of the princes whom the British rule had reduced to glorified monarchs had no expertise to incorporate their own constitution and were most importantly busy bargaining and settling their privy purses, titles and honors. So most of them decided to directly participate in the constituent assembly set up for the Indian Constitution. But what happen in J&K was very different. The closeness between Abdullah and Nehru had distanced Maharaja Hari Singh and delayed the accession of J&K State to India. Sheikh Abdullah had joined the Indian National movement with a hidden agenda of becoming the Sultan of Jammu and Kashmir State and his friendship with Nehru would lead to fulfilling this dream. It was Nehru-Sheikh friendship which further resulted in a grave mistake in form of Article 370 (despite strong objection from other congress leaders including Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar.)
Coming to the stone pelting by the youth and using young children as shield in this activity, I reprimanded a mother for sending her five-year-old kid to pelt stones? She said, "Madam, you stay in Mumbai and we stay here. If we don’t send our kids, we are told by local terrorist , ‘khareeyat chaiye kya?’ If he joins them in the stone pelting activity, he will bring home Rs 500 and the whole family is safe. One finds local women to participating in stone pelting and a lot of this aggression is due to the pressure of jihadis and also the influence of drugs on the the youth of the valley. The UN report in 2008 stated there are 70, 000 drug addicts in the valley and 25% of these are women. What worries me is that they are ruining our next generation and brainwashing the school going children of the valley by training them to dance to the tune of ‘Azaadi’ and ‘Go India Go’. A lot of injustice has been done to the youth of the valley by the local politicians (when not in power ) by misguiding, encouraging them towards jihad, and stone pelting. The previous central Govt. should also be held responsible as they did little to improve the wrongs, the mis-governance and the corrupt practices existing in the State all because they wanted to appease the minority community who were their vote bank in and outside the State.
The present Govt. will need to set things right by being assertive with a no nonsense approach but at the same time showing a lot of empathy for the locals and setting up transparent, corruption free state governance and development, programs. They will have to re-establish the past Sufi culture and remind the youth that the Sufi culture & past civilization of the valley is their strong inheritance.
An informative and progressive development plan needs to be put in place and the menace of drugs in the valley needs to be curbed. Peace is the need of the hour and also an essential way forward in this region. People like Farooq Abdullah, Muftis can come into the fray and stand in for the elections but the truth of their role in the destruction of the harmony in the State has to be told to the youth and the people of the valley. The height of their mismanagement and corruption in the valley can be highlighted by an example of Agro Industries Corporation which is a State Government Undertaking and during the serious earthquake of November 2005 which caused large scale damages, the State Government ordered that one day’s salary of all Government and semi-Government employees should be deducted and transferred to relief fund for the victims of this earthquake. The Agro Industries Corporation officially deducted one day’s salary of its 400 strong staff as was done by other departments. But after eight years of that event, it was found that the deducted amount from the one day salary was never deposited in the treasury.
People of Jammu and Ladakh have been subjected to a step motherly treatment since 1947. It is very difficult to forgive the local politicians for their misdeeds leading to the current chaos in the region and on my fellow beings. Sheikh Abdullah is claimed by some of the vested parties as a pro-people leader. If he really was pro-people I wonder why during the 1947 war (invasion by Pakistan) the people who came from POJK region into Kashmir were pushed down to settle in Jammu region? He did this because they were not his vote bank. Why did his Govt. deny the Schedule Caste Indians in 1947 war who crossed the border and settled in Jammu the right to education, employment and property in the J&K State ? He favored the population of the valley (mostly Muslims) with all the privileges and development as they were his vote bank. Maharaja Hari Singh on the other hand was unbiased to the J&K State population and brought about many social reforms in the State -like prohibition of child marriage, prohibition of smoking among children, polygamy, opening of doors of temples for scheduled castes, making primary education compulsory for all subjects, and widow marriage. After 1947 Independence and because of article 370 and 35 A J&K State and its people have been denied progress and development. So such regressive articles should and must be abrogated.
Dr Gaurav Gadgil, Assistant Professor of History, Somaiyya College
If we go by history, Maharaja Hari Singh wanted to join the Indian cause, even though the concept of Azaadi was lingering in Kashmir politics at that time. A substantial agreement was signed with Pakistan, but there was no agreement as similar to this signed with India at that point of time.All changes have been discussed in Instrument of Accession executed by Maharaja on October 26. By executing this document under the provisions of the Indian Independence Act 1947, Maharaja Hari Singh agreed to accede to the Dominion of India. You don't have Article 370 being promised, but negotiations have undoubtedly taken place.Post that, ceasefire came into effect. If we didn't declare a ceasefire, we would have been on the winning side, but a lot of other factors needed to be considered from a strategic point of view. Basic issue of logistics and expanding it to the regions where it is the PoK right now was a problem. Also Sheikh Abdullah was not influential enough, so there was a greater probability of resistance to Indian Armed Forces from the locals. So, was the Indian Army equipped to deal with local resistance during that time? Also it was very difficult for us to supply logistics to the troops.Nehru was a man with a socialist ideology and this was also the time where US and Britian were apprehensive about the political situation in the sub-continent. Fearing the widespread communism, the policy of containment was adopted by the Indian-American alliance. South Asia played a pivotal role in getting Nehru inclined towards socialism. There was a possibility of him turning towards the Soviet, so in order to avert the situation, Kashmir became centre of talks between India and Pakistan. India could economically sustain itself in the long run but Pakistan could not. Hence, there was cold war like situation in 1940s and 1950s. Nehru was idealistic to a great extent, who believed that the UN would play a partial role. Now we know, 70 years down the line UN has been a biased organisation in multiple ways. Culturally, the subcontinent culture is similar. If we say that we can claim Kashmir because it is a part of our culture, Pakistan can too. We have been part of the same culture for many centuries.Historically, Ladakh has always felt betrayed by how it was handed over to Dogri rulers by the British by paying a lump sum amount of 75 lakhs. Ladakh has a long pending demand of being union territory which is some to extent justified. Also, Ladakh has not been the political part of J&K like in recent times. There is an overwhelming majority of people in Kashmir doesn't want to go to Pakistan. When you give certain political rights and you take it away suddenly, it causes a lot of disturbance.The political elections were a facade for a large part for contemporary Indians after the post-colonial history. Dynastic politics has been a big problem not only for Kashmir but for entire India. When it comes to the second line of leadership, many regional parties have emerged in other parts of India, but you don't have a new party emerging like that with such strong force in the J&K.When it comes to governance, every party in every state can be blamed, because people have rights to question the authority. In J&K, however people have to comprise with those right because of many external and internal factors, like terrorism, separatism, security issues etc. The problems in J&K are a lot more compounding than in other states.Overall, Sheikh Abdullah and Maharaja, both shared the same idea of inclusive India and integrating Kashmir with India. The idea was of an India which is going to prosper with the diversities intact.About Article 370 being revoked, the process through which it was done is a problem. Again, 370 was a temporary status, and it is undoubtedly stated in the constitution. No age in history has been golden. There have been instances of torture, exploitation and bloody massacres. We need to look forward to the future where a good reality for the society can be created rather than looking at the past.
Brigadier Pramatesh Raina, Retd Army Official
I have no disrespect for the Nehru, but the unfortunate part is the integration for Kashmir back then. Nehru was guided by Sheikh Abdullah, who himself was a great nationalist and he cared for his population. But his population began and ended where the ethnic Kashmiri speaking people lived. Outside the ethnic Kashmiri region, we have other languages spoken. Even if they are all Muslims, but the language is different. So, his interest lay in seeing to the welfare and well-being of the state did not extend beyond that.To give a view, in the late 1920's and early 1930's, the first riot started against the Maharaja. That time there were two people - one was the unquestioned leader Moulvi Yousuf Shah and one was a pretender Sheikh Abdullah. Yousuf Shah was the grandfather of Moulvi Umar Farooq, a religious leader of the valleys Muslim. But he got on the wrong side of the Raja, which gave an opportunity for Sheikh Abdullah to emerge as a leader. He became the unquestioned leader of the Muslims against the Raja not against India.In the riots, the subsequent actions that followed were Moulvi Yousuf Shah ran and settled down in Muzaffarabad. Most of his following was concentrated there but had a fair amount of people supported him in Srinagar too. It gave rise to the two terms - 'bakra' and 'sher'. Bakra was because of the beard Moulvi Yousuf Shah sported, and sher was for the lion of Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah. Kashmir was divided between the two. In 1940, the cardinal mistake which India made was to propose and accept the cease-fire. It is always the losing party that agrees to terms. Sheikh Abdullah was leaning towards India mainly because of his friendship with Nehru, and his hostility with Mohammed Ali Jinnah. In 1944, Jinnah came to Srinagar, and the way he conducted himself, he assumed that Kashmir is part of Pakistan.Talking about the sentiments of the people today, a recent example is a conversation with my coworker. He asked one of his staff members who hails from Kashmir that, suppose we tell you that valley would belong to Pakistan from so and so date, what will happen? He replied that there will be a trucks loaded with people who want to leave Kashmir, and settle in the rest of India. Politics has ruined two generations of Kashmiri children. The government of India always supported Abdullahs and Muftis, and they never trusted the local generation. They never allowed other politicians to flourish.In a sensitive case like Jammu and Kashmir, lack of transparency gets magnified. The fault of the central government was that they depended more on certain families. The government was playing through their fair, and were reliable on the people staying in Srinagar.
Rajan Khanna, Chairman, Punjabi Sahitya Academy, Maharashtra
Instrument of Accession was signed on October 26, 1947 between Maharaja Hari Singh and the other states of India. It was effective, robust, and legal. The Maharaja was inclined to join the state of India. But Nehru trusted Abdullah so much that he said, "Jo awaam ka kayad hai, Wo Sheikh Abdullah hai," which means, 'leader of the people in Kashmir was Sheikh Abdullah'. So, if he agrees on this, only then would he (Nehru) sign the Instrument of Accession. Post that, there was a standstill agreement which Maharaja signed with Pakistan.I was in Srinagar in 1971, later I moved to Mumbai. I was a child, my father had a business in downtown Srinagar. One+ of his employee, Shaukat Ali who belonged to Baramulla spoke in Punjabi. During that time, most of the Pakistani troops too spoke in Punjabi, generally they speak in Pashtuni language. This means Nehru allowed Pakistanis to invade Kashmir, and he also allowed PoJK. We delayed signing Instrument of Accession due to which the Pakistanis entered our region.If you look at Jammu-Kashmir, starting from Kathua till Nawazpur is all Dogri dominated area. Ladakh is Ladakhi dominated area. Why aren't they complaining about the integration. We haven't been able to abrogate the Article 370 for so many years because they said Kashmiriyat will come in danger. What about Ladakhiyat? They never complained. People there (Ladakh) are rejoicing and celebrating. Dogris too are celebrating. So, what was so unique about Kashmiriyat. There, for long has been a campaign to pollute the culture and civilisation of Kashmir. Even when you go to the museums there, you see that they say Pashmina shawls came from Turkey, and was introduced by Shah Amlani. Why? Was there no one who weaved shawls in the Valley before him. Why do we credit an outsider for this?This is a bartership year. We peacefully completed the integration of Kashmir. People welcome the decision with open arms. Our Civilisation value says everybody who is the son of this land is our own. This is my belief too. The development arena is open now. You can go, shoot your movies. I also made a documentary and people welcomed me with open hands. Article 370 drafted by Kashmiri government. The J&K Constitution is an integral part of India. There is a shortage of medicines there, I heard. I have already started talking to those concerned about providing ration and medicines to people.In 1946, passport were mandatory for anybody who wanted to go to Kashmir. Anyone caught without it were arrested. Kashmiris were happy under Maharaja Hari Singh, they considered him as one of them, Nehru was against him as it hurted his ego. In 1947 he agreed upon a wrong policy. However, the majority of Kashmiris chose India over Pakistan.
Jatin Desai, Member of Indo-Pak People Forum for Peace and Friendship
Sheikh Abdullah was a prominent leader in Kashmir. He decided to change his party's name Muslim Conference to National Conference after Nehru adviced him to do so. Nehru knew that Sheikh Abdullah had the power to protect the interests of the communities like Muslims, Hindus and Pandits in Kashmir. Nehru also decided to go to the United Nation Organisation (UNO) and asked seeked Mahatma Gandhi's advice on the UNO. However, Gandhi asked to call Pakistan for discussion, but this would not have been accepted by the UN. I think we did injustice to Nehru when he decided to go to UNO.Today we are celebrating 77th anniversary of Quit India Movement. At the same time when we launched Quit India Movement in 1946, Sheikh Abdulla's National Conference started Quit Kashmir Movement. They were against feudalism and monarchy. Sheikh Abdulla was representing the common people, whereas Raja Hari Singh represented feudalism in Kashmir. In Raja Hari Singh's reign Muslim's were a majority but did not get any significant position.On the other side from Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah had decided to capture Srinagar on Eid. The months of October, November, and December were very difficult for Indian Army. They had to capture or recapte Kargil. We, at that time had fewer equipments, backups. Sardar Patel said that we needed to stop at Kargil, and we cannot go beyond that. It is too easy for people to criticise.In democratic country too, we are following legacies, like the Thackereys in Shiv Sena, Gandhis in Congress, Abdullas and Muftis in Jammu and Kashmir. After the removal of Article 370, more than 50,000 people will get jobs on 300 acres land in Kashmir. Big industries will come up too.
Sunil Tambe, Senior Journalist & Author
The Indian Independence Act 1947, was the basis of partition. The basic logic for partition was religion. British India was to be divided into two nations. As per the Act, the 500 plus princely states were given two options, they were either free to join India or Pakistan. Then, remained two princely states who were in a bind and that was Junagadh because the ruler was a Muslim and the majority of the population were Hindus. They had already declared that they will join Pakistan. So, the principle applied by the Indian National Movement was, 'What is the people's mandate?' And then, the Junagadh nawab had to flee. In Kashmir, the ruler was a Hindu and the majority of the population were Muslims and that was the issue. Congress did not understand the logic behind the partition, but they accepted it. Congress did not claim that theirs was a Hindu majority state whereas Pakistan did. Now in Kashmir, people were free to choose between the two. At the time, all our Indian defence forces were under the British general, and not under the Indian General. This was same in Pakistan. So, the division over there did not appreciate the aggression.Secondly, it was difficult to convince the UN that we had right over Kashmir because, at that time, the USA, China, Russia and Britain were on Pakistan's side. Therefore we had to convince Sheikh Abdullah to give a statement to UN. He said, "Even if the prophets come and tell me to join Pakistan, I will decline to follow his orders." Article 370 was drafted by the then Kashmir government and then sent to the constituent assembly. The Indian constitution was inclusive and welcomed diversities. We have different articles for states like Nagaland, Arunachal etc, for Kashmir, it was Article 370. If you take back all those rights, then it will cause unrest and problem. Democracy always gives voice to the people.
