Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has been repeatedly asserting that the State has not ‘merged’ with India and that it has only ‘acceded’. The play of words disguises his failure to reconcile with the reality
Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah is a bitter critic of the Constitution of India, the Indian Army, the paramilitary forces and the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958. He doesn’t unequivocally endorse the view that Jammu & Kashmir has become an integral part of India. Ever since his appointment as Chief Minister on January 5, 2009, he has been making common cause with Kashmiri separatists and urging the Congress-led UPA Government, of which his National Conference is a part, to settle the issue of Kashmir politically. He has been saying, “A political solution to the political problem of Kashmir is the only way forward”.
Mr Abdullah has, on more than one occasion, told Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi that the people of Kashmir have not sacrificed their lives for employment and economic packages, and that if the alienation of Kashmiri Muslims was to end, New Delhi will have to respect their political aspirations.
However, it was on March 25, that Mr Abdullah, who has failed the people of the State on all fronts, crossed the line when he used the floor of the Assembly to ridicule and challenge Indian lawmakers. Just 10 days earlier, Parliament had adopted a unanimous resolution against Pakistan reiterating that the “entire State of Jammu & Kashmir, including the territories under illegal occupation of Pakistan, is and shall always be an integral part of India” and that India will not tolerate any interference in the internal affairs of the country.
Mr Abdullah told the Assembly that the State had only acceded and not merged with India. He did not stop there. He went on to say that Pakistan was a factor in the State’s political situation that needed to be recognised and appreciated for forging a lasting peace in the region.
It is hardly necessary to reflect on the serious implications of what he said about Pakistan and the status of J&K. Mr Abdullah’s provocative statement did create a sort of furore in the State in general, and Jammu, ladakh and New Delhi in particular. But the powers-that-be in South and North Blocks did not take cognizance of his statement that undoubtedly constituted an onslaught on Indian sovereignty and negated Article 1 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitution.
Article 1 and Section 3 unequivocally say that J&K is and shall always be an integral part of India. The spokespersons of the Sonia Gandhi-led Congress and the UPA Government rejected the Opposition’s criticism of Mr Abdullah and said that his statement was his “personal view”.
The fact of the matter is that the Congress and the UPA Government appeased Mr Abdullah and Kashmiri separatists by condoning the Chief Minister for going beyond the constitutional confines. After March 25, Mr Abdullah made a number of statements of similar nature, taking the Indian state for a ride.
Mr Abdullah was convinced that the time was ripe to internationalise the Kashmir issue prior to Mr Singh’s meeting with his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly at New York on September 29 to discuss bilateral issues, including terrorism in J&K. He sought to enlist the support of the visiting European Union delegation during his meeting with it on September 25 at Srinagar.
While talking to the delegation’s head Joao Cravinho, he, inter alia, said: “The accession of Jammu & Kashmir to the Union of India was on four matters of currency, communication, foreign affairs and defence. While all the States acceded to the Union of India and then merged with it, J&K only acceded and not merged. That is why we have special status, our own Constitution and State flag…”
Mr Abdullah not only suppressed hard facts but also made three wrong statements to mislead the delegation. First, that the accession of J&K was on four subjects, including finance. This was not the case. The accession of J&K, like all other Princely States, was on three subjects — defence, foreign affairs and communication.
Second, that J&K only acceded to but did not merge with India. Only small Princely States had merged with the adjoining bigger Princely States. The Indian Independence Act of 1947 did not say that the Princely States had to accede, as also to merge with either of the two Dominions, India and Pakistan.
The third truth that he withheld during his discussions with the delegation was that Article 370, under which the State was granted a special status, was temporary.
(The writer is former Dean of Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Jammu)