Columnist
|
|
|
| | Article 370: Resurrecting an old ghost | | | Virtually every party claiming some sort of a national presence (only the Indian National Congress and the BJP are widely accepted as national parties) is in varying degrees in disarray afflicted with acute factionalism and struggle for leadership. These often compel both the aspiring and frustrated leaders to play some old but emotive card to seek public support and to rally their fan followers within the party. Such considera¬tions might have prompted the BJP leader, L.K.Advani, to publicly scratch the old sore of Article 370 in many a staunch Hindu heart, while referring emotionally to the sacrifice made by Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee on the occasion of his birth day. Following his party line, though in recent years he had often very sensibly differed with it over many issues, he spoke out against any suggestion of making the above article permanent and in recognition of the sacrifice made by Dr. Mukherjee for retaining J&K state within the Indian Union, and asserted once again that this state is ours, that is India’s.
Few, unfortunately, care to remember that Dr. Mukherjee was an important member of the central cabinet when this much-criticised article was passed, piloted in Nehru’s absence by none but our ‘Iron Man’ Sardar V.B. Patel Dr. Mukherjee neither spoke nor gave any dissenting note against this bill. Even later, as the undisputed leader of the agitation he inspired or led, he protested against various restrictions on ‘outsiders’ entry into the state and other statements allegedly made by the Sheikh but never against this article granting Jammu and Kashmir state a ‘special status’. He was too much of a realist and a nationalist to over-look what was feasible and in over all national interest. His less worthy followers have, unfortunately, made a mess of a possible solution by partially distorting while deifying him.
While discussing our state’s accession to and integration with India one should remember this unusual occasion and way in which the legal formalities of her accession were hastened. Had it not been a princely state it would have been partitioned like Bengal and Punjab with its Muslim-majority area conti¬guous with that of Punjab and NWFP would have naturally gone to Pakistan, according to the terms of the Radcliffe Award. That did not happen because the Radcliffe Award did not apply to the princely states whose rulers were given the option to chose between India and Pakistan, keeping in consideration geographic and other relevant considerations. The All India Muslim League accepted this provision, while the A.I.C.C., at its meeting on 11 July 1947, resolved that the future of princely states could be decided only by their people. So, our leaders had clearly rejected the rulers’ right to decide to which union they should accede. Behind the known commitment to democra¬cy of our then leaders the future of Hyderabad and Junagad must have weighed in favour of their decision. In fact, after the Nawab of Junagad had acceded to Pakistan we sent armed gangs into the state, which was then legally a part of Pakistan, to drive out the Nawab and to ensure its accession to India by a democra¬tically chosen government that followed. So, how on earth, could we accept J&K’s accession to India on the sole basis of the Maharaja’s will who had been forced to take this decision only in the face of the ‘raiders invasion’, after very patiently sitting on the fence for over a month?
So, when the mauruding mob was fast approaching Srinagar and minutes mattered, we could accept the state’s accession and fly into the valley our army only after Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah, as the undisputed leader of Kashmiri Muslims, had given his personal approval to it in Nehru’s house in Delhi. Evidently to secure moral approval for the way the accession had been ensured prime minister Nehru, more than once, promised that the future of Kashmir would be decided by Kashmiris through, obviously a ‘free and fair’ plebiscite. But, that was never attempted, first, because the troubled situation did not ensure the success of such a solution, and later we fought shy of acting an unfavourable verdict of the people. So, to make the best of a bad situation, we decided to make the decision taken in haste acceptable to the Kashmiris and world by giving this state some sort of a special status, virtually forced the Maharaja to quit, and played up the Sheikh’s image and persona as a unique regional Muslim leader totally committed to India by virtually acceding to all his ambitions and requests. Since peoples’ wish was never tested no one ever asked the state assembly to merge with India, like all other princely states, and her relationship with the Union Government technically remains frozen with the Instrument of Accession, giving the central government control only over her defence, communication and foreign relations. Of course, the fact that the ‘special status’ accorded to our state by Article 370 has been since then eroded beyond recognition is a different story, and that is what many Kashmiris resent and refer to it as India’s betrayal.
In fact, since the day the Sheikh was arrested in August 1953, the union government has treated J&K like any other state and had interfered oftener and more ham-handedly than in the political life of any other state. J&K’s so-called ‘special status’ has not affected our interests or impeded the centre’s policies in any way. If Indian government been so far very generous with her on the economic front as with a few tiny states in our volatile north-east, it is primarily to bribe her alienated population into silence and passive cooperation. Then, why should we speak out against Article 370, from time to time, and repeat the needless and irritating assertion, “Kashmir is ours”? Why unnecessarily wave this red flag before the Kashmiri bull (not, only the Kashmiri, but also of J&K)? The repeated poor showing of the BJP even in the non-Muslim-majority districts of J&K indicates that, despite their differences with the Kashmiris over many issues and their unquestioned attachment to India most people of the Jammu region are in favour of the so-called special status and the security it provides them.
Then, why repeat this foolish claim? Kashmir belongs to Kashmiris, just as Bengal belongs to Bengalis, Tamil Nadu to Tamils, Punjab to Punjabis, and so on. All these states presently belong to India because the people of these states, who own these, have chosen to be with India. India is not an occupying country and her frontiers extend, atleast should extend, to include all Indians, i.e. who claim to be Indians. Those who refuse to call themselves Indians should have no place in democratic India. So, why hurt the collective ego of any people by unnecessarily repeating, from time to time, that their state belongs to us, i.e. probably the self-claimed superior Indians? If we feel that there is something wrong in Kashmiri psyche vis-a-vis India then let us make a sympathetic study of its nature and root, and make a serious effort at applying the proper remedy. Old prescriptions and failed drugs must give way to new ones. Many lives and much time have been wasted; but it is never too late for a sincere effort, when the aim is to arrive at a solution and not the success we have fixed in our mind as our goal. |
|
|
|
|
Comment on this Story |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|