:-Inderesh Kumar Jain
1 As I attempt to decipher historical writings and records to understand the geneses and the subsequent ebb and flow, of the conundrum that is Kashmir , as it pertains to us in India, I am struck as it were, by the psyche and predilections of some of the major players ie Maharaja Hari Singh, Pandit Nehru, Sardar Patel, Sheikh Abdullah and Mountbatten of Burma, to name but a few.
2 It would be beyond my competence and limited understanding of events of history, to apportion blame or sit in judgement of the dramatis personae. The aim will be to try and objectivize the turn of events especially the contentious Article 370.
3 On 26 Oct 1947, Mharaja Hari Singh’s signatures on the Instrument of Accession, was an act of pragmatism, born out of a basic conflict between the intense desire for the furtherance of his dynasty and the historical evidence of his ancestors having gained handsome dividends by keeping aloof during the Sikh War and the Great Mutiny of 1857. His hand of course, was forced by the cardinal sin by Pakistan, of sending in armed raiders to lay waste to his land and occupy Kashmir, after his having signed a standstill agreement with them.
4 Jinnah’s affirmation of the two nation theory and his complicity in attempting the hard option (invasion by tribesman) , when his overtures to the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan failed, is implicit in the entire enactment. It is said that his Minister if States met the then PM of Kashmir, M.C. Mahajan, in Oct 1947 and after this meeting had warned the then CM of NWFP, that any ‘misadventure’ / aggression in Kashmir would provoke an accession to India. It is said that Jinnah had heard this earlier and had meaningfully said “Don’t tell me anything about it. My conscience must be clear” ……… So much for the idealism and values which underlined much of the rhetoric of those times.
5 Sheikh Abdhullah, after his release, from prison by Maharaja Hari Singh in Sep 1947, was in the process of realizing his dream of becoming the uncontested leader of the Kashmiris. He was in conversation with both the Mahatma and Pandit Nehru. In Oct 1947 he wrote to Pandit Nehru, who had invited him to Delhi, that he was in the process of taking stock of the situation, but was hampered by the absence of his other friends who were still in jail. He also said that the representatives of the Maharaja were in touch with him and that he felt that “…. A substantial transfer of power and responsibility to popular hands can satisfy the demands of the occasion. A popularly governed Kashmir would constitute a great support of the Indian Union in its objective and also furnish a powerful basis of the safety and continuity of the ruler and his family ……..” These were trying times in those days and the incipient uprising against the Maharaja in the areas of the Poonch Jagir was another facet which coloured the already mired landscape.
6 It is little known and even lesser discussed that Sheikh Abdullah had commenced a parallel overture with Pakistan, even before he left for Delhi in Oct 1947 by sending G M Sadiq to Lahore to meet the leaders of Pakistan. It is also stated that three prominent Pakistanis from Lahore went to Srinagar and stayed there for two or three days and held confabulations with Sheikh Abdullah to support the accession to Pakistan. It was agreed that they would go back and present a record of the discussions to the Pakistani government. The Sheikh was to then send GM Sadiq to Lahore (which was actually done and GM Sadiq was sent to Lahore) to prepare the grounds for the Sheikh’s meeting with Jinnah in Karachi. It was when G M Sadiq was in Lahore that invaders entered Kashmir from Pakistan.
7 Article 370 was the product of an apparent understanding between Pandit Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah and it was Gopalaswamy Ayyangar to whom Pandit Nehru turned to, to draft it and argue the case in the constituent assembly ( Ayyangar had been the PM of Kashmir with Maharaja Hari Singh for six years). It is said that the attempt to argue the case in the constituent assembly was so heated that even Maulana Azad was shouted down. Nehru finally requested Sardar Patel to have the provision ie Article 370 passed, which the Sardar did out of his fealty to Nehru, in spite of his own misgivings. It would be pertinent to note here the reaction of the Law Minister, Dr Ambedkar to the Article; he told the Sheikh, “ …. You wish India should protect your borders, she should build roads in your areas, she should supply you food grains and Kashmir should get equal status as India. But the Indian Government should have only limited powers and the Indian people should have no rights in Kashmir. To give consent to this proposal would be a treacherous thing against the interests of India and I as the Law minister of India will never do it……….” It is however, important to note that this was essentially an interim/ temporary provision.
8 Article 35 A was “introduced” into the Constitution by a Presidential order of May 1954 which empowered the State Legislature to legislate on the privileges of the permanent residents of the state with regard to immoveable property, settlement in the state and employment. The states’ land reform legislation (acquiring of land without paying compensation) was also protected. (It had been introduced without discussion on the floor of the house and was pushed through by Pandit Nehru, even after having been asked by Dr Rajendra Prasad as to the legal validity of the Article, so it is said).
9 A word about the Constituent Assembly (CA) of Kashmir; this was recommended to be convened by the National Conference (N C), which was the largest party in the state in Oct 1950 and the then Sadar-E-Riyasat Karan Singh issued a proclamation in May 1951 that these elections be held. The elections were held in Aug – Sep 1951 and the NC won all the 75 seats. In Oct 1951 Sheikh Abdullah addressed the Constituent Assembly for the first time and asked it to frame the Constitution. The process of establishing the framework commenced and continued apace. It is on 15 Feb 1954 that the CA passed a unanimous resolution ratifying the State’s accession to India. The CA was dissolved in Nov 1956 based on a motion moved by Mir Qasim; the Constitution came into effect on 26 Jan 1957. (The CA however did not rescind the temporary nature of the Article and this is essentially the bone of contention to this day ie 04 Aug 2019). I allude to these facts to bring out ( the events leading up to and the results thereof relating to the political landscape)that there have been either oversight/ omissions due to lack of political will and / or a deliberate design, which was shaped by the circumstances that were prevalent at that point of time. It was probably not largely predicted at that point in time, that India would probably become one of the fastest growing economies in the world or that it would create such an impact on the world stage.
10 The UN Resolutions of 1948 ie No 39 0f Jan 1948 and No 47 of Apr 1948 and No 80 of Mar 1950 are the ones which are frequently referred to and are relevant to this treatise. These were unambiguous in their purpose and intent and the underlying logic, and from the formulation of Resolution No 47 it had been clearly understood as to who had been the aggressor in this case and it was therefore asked of Pakistan first to withdraw its ‘Nationals’ who had entered Kashmir for the purpose of fighting and upon their removal was India asked to steadily withdraw its forces to a strength requisite for the maintenance of law and order and only later was a plebiscite to be held under the aegis of the UNO.
11 I hark to the substance of these resolutions to highlight that the perpetrators role had been unambiguously defined and the logic of the thought process had been clearly evident. How the events of history would subsequently play out and belie the origins of the conflict, which would be lost in the obfuscation and ‘the fog of war’, in spite of the plethora of agreements and joint statements which would follow as the years slipped by.
12 In the ultimate analysis, the articles of the Constitution, which created ‘a state within a state’ and instilled a sense of entitlement and impunity wherein ‘all ---- are equal but some are more equal than others’; were instrumental in creation of an enormous sense of imbalance and extreme alienation between the populace. It would be germane to this discussion to point to the fact that the state of Jammu and Kashmir was not a homogenous whole, either in terms of religiosity or orientation, however it had a flavor of its own and ‘Kashmiriyat’ ,an age old concept of mutual existence, respect and cohabitation; was probably the most visible and distressing casualty of this estrangement.
13 A veritable deluge of violence was perpetrated, especially after ‘Operation TOPAC’ was unleashed by Zia-Ul- Haq, in 1989 and its disastrous consequences in 1990 where a genocidal wave was allowed to be enacted, as the Kashmiri Hindus were forced out of their homeland and were compelled to become ‘refugees’ in their own country, is a shameful commentary on the ‘politics’ of our times. That this was breezed over by successive governments as the right of self-determination and democratic expression is deplorable and frightening. We can also not forget Hazratbal, Tsar-E-Sharif, the sacred relic of the Prophet and other acts of violence perpetrated then. Carefully nurtured by the Pakistani deep state the ‘indigenous movement’, from secessionism was turned on its head into a ‘jihadi’ ideology of the ISIS/ Al Qaida by 2016. The most visible portents of this was the increase in the intensity of the perpetration of violence thereafter.
14 The Afghan imbroglio needs to be referred to here, to assess the likely colour it may give to this internecine power play. Zalmay Ahmadnizad, the US interlocutor, who is close to finalizing a treaty with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar for the ‘Withdrawal’, of the US troops from Afghanistan. As recently as 06 August 19 he was in Delhi to brief the External Affairs Minister, on the goings on. It is widely perceived in certain quarters that in the event of a treaty materializing, the Taliban would probably have a role to play in the governance of Afghanistan. This of course is resented by the present dispensation in power there. This may be instrumental in releasing some of their ‘resources’ for employment in the East (read Jammu and Kashmir). The Taliban in a statement on 08 Aug 19 have made a significant departure from norms and for the first time as an entity have taken a position on the abrogation by saying that Afghanistan cannot be turned into a theatre of competition between two countries and have also said that Afghanistan and Kashmir must not be linked.
15 I will desist from any further commentary, but it will suffice to say here that Articles 370 and 35A have not helped the peoples of the country to homogenise and galvanise their resources and their convictions for prosperity and for the common good. It has brought in its wake untold perversity and deprivation. Over the years the Indian State has explored all available options ad infinitum, and having reached the end of its tether decided to be decisive. While we may celebrate our resoluteness, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We will need to instill a sense of confidence, empathy and purposeful action aimed at eradicating the deep seated real and perceived grievances, the insecurity and the fear of the unknown that will invariably play spoil sport to our most earnest efforts. We will need to integrate fully the ‘never, never land’ into the warm embrace of our rambunctious democracy. Let us place our faith in our democratic institutions and their strength and in our efforts to reach there.
