Nehru’s pampering of Sheikh Abdullah led to the mess that we face in Kashmir today, writes AKANSHA MEHTA
No provision of the Constitution attracts as much controversy and evokes as much emotion as Article 370. The statement by a junior Minister recently stirred up this debate yet again. It is well known that seeds of Article 370 lie in Clause 7 of the ‘Instrument of Accession’. What is not so well known to many is, why an ‘Instrument’ that allowed seamless merger to 562 princely States in the Indian Union, had to give birth to Article 370 when it came to Jammu & KashmirIJ The answer lies in the events preceding the framing of the Constitution.
Despite availability of option in the ‘Instrument’, most princely States had not opted for independence, as economic survival of small States was considered unviable. Kashmir, with its territory of 84,471 square miles and an estimated population of about 40 lakh, of which a majority was Muslim, ruled by a non-Muslim, ruler was a different story. Unlike other princely States, Kashmiris were already agitating against its Dogra king. A faction led by Ghulam Abbas stood for Islamisation of Kashmir and integration with Pakistan; the other led by Sheikh Abdullah stood for self-rule. This partially explain why Kashmiris behaved differently, when invited in the Constituent Assembly.
The circumstances of signing the ‘Instrument of Accession’ are also significant. The Maharaja never wanted to join India or Pakistan. However, when Pakistan sent armed tribal and its own regular Army disguised in plain clothes to capture Srinagar, the Maharaja panicked and wrote to lord Mountbatten on October 26, 1947, seeking help.
The desperation contained in this communication clearly suggests that the Maharaja was in no position to bargain with India. He was more than willing to accede without any pre-condition. This generation needs to know what prevented Indian leaders from securing complete integration of Kashmir with India at that point of time when circumstances were so favourable to the countryIJ The answer to this question lies in the mysterious chemistry between Jawaharlal Nehru and Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah.
Maharaja Hari Singh's intense dislike for his tormentor, Sheikh Abdullah, is public knowledge. The chronicles suggest that it was Nehru who pressured the Maharaja to appoint Abdullah to represent Jammu & Kashmir in the Constituent Assembly. The constitutional havoc created by him in the Constituent Assembly, thereafter, is beyond description. He and his team declared at the very first instance that relationship between Jammu & Kashmir and India was acceptable only as per Para 7 of the Instrument, which read: “Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future Constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to enter into agreements with the Government of India under any such future Constitution.” BR Ambedkar had opposed it vehemently.
In the personal account of a very senior national leader, reproduced by Arvind lavakare in his article ‘The Truth About Article 370’, published on June 23, 2005, it is mentioned that knowing fully that Ambedkar would not draft such a suicidal provision for our Constitution, “Jawaharlal Nehru, before leaving the country for a visit abroad, finalised the draft provisions relating to Jammu & Kashmir along with Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah and entrusted Golpalaswami Ayyangar the task of piloting these provisions through the Constituent Assembly. Ayyangar spelt out his proposals in the Congress Parliamentary Party. His presentation provoked a storm of angry protests from all sides and Ayyangar found himself a lone defender with Maulana Azad an ineffective supporter.” Despite resistance, due to the influence of Nehru, the Bill was passed in the Constituent Assembly as Article 370 of the Constitution.
A sizeable opinion in India believes that Article 370 needs to be abrogated forthwith as its continued existence is prohibiting integration of Kashmir in the national mainstream. However, it is foolish to believe that abrogation will end the problem. Article 370 is not the problem, it is a product of a problem. It was created as a conduit through which provisions inimical to Constitution flowed out. After they left the barrel, they metamorphosed into various provisions of the State Constitution and enactments termed as repugnant.
In the history of a nation, opportunities come but it’s rare when the destiny of its people can be shaped. The Constituent Assembly was one such moment that was lost. Ambedkar is on record to have said to the Kashmiri delegates: “Mr Abdullah, you want that India should defend Kashmir, India should develop Kashmir and Kashmiris should have equal rights in India, but you don't want India and any citizen of India to have any right in Kashmir. I am the law Minister of India. I cannot betray the interest of my country.” The failure of Ambedkar and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel to rein in Nehru has cost this nation dear. As the lid of the can was left open, worms crawled out of it. Separatism, extremism, fundamentalism, extra-territorial loyalties and demagoguery are but few. Once these forces were unleashed in the valley, fanned and fuelled by cross-border elements, it now requires much greater political resolve to rein them.
The Kashmiri people know well that their political as well as economic well-being lies with India. What they ought to also know is that the asymmetrical relationship forced upon India by the Kashmiri leaders has vitiated the atmosphere and retarded their own politico-economic growth and development. The beautiful framework of our Constitution allows the States and its citizens to enjoy liberty, individual rights and enough safeguards to preserve and develop one's own culture, heritage, religion and identity with full dignity. The Kashmiri leadership has to mature and get over its misplaced phobia about Parliament going all out to rob the valley of its liberty and destroy its identity, culture and religion. For the nation’s healthy development, Article 370 must go. Not through extra-constitutional means but through the process already inherent in Clause (3) of the same Article.
(The writer is a law student at the RMl National law University, lucknow)