Autonomy Under Indian Constitution: An Old Pragmatic Approach To Kashmir or a Recipe for Disaster?

[Zibago]

So in short the message is enslave Kashmiris and slaugjter all who you dont like

 

[Nilgiri]

The real heroes, Bacha Khan for one, never budged a millimetre from their principled stand.

I much admire him. But could you tell what his position was w.r.t Kashmir if he stated it? Or by position changing you just mean issues in general and not just Kashmir.

I'll wait till you are back in working order, no rush! Its always interesting and insightful to read what you have to say.

So in short the message is enslave Kashmiris and slaugjter all who you dont like

The message for your side is quite simple:

 

[Hellfire]

If we have to explain Indian actions after 1947 with respect to Kashmir
then we must go back further into the Freedom movement and Pakistan movement

Indian leaders had Fresh memories of all that happened in the years leading upto 1947

So they were WISE in HINDSIGHT

Hence we eroded Article 370 ; and DID not trust the Kashmiris

We knew that Pakistani influences would work their way into Kashmiri hearts and they
would ask for freedom -- after some years

We only did what was in Our Interest

I am deliberately going slow in order to take every point step by step and discuss it so that a clarity is maintained. We have a tendency to mix too many things at the same time and get confused. Please bear with me.

I have given the post at #55 in order to give you the sense of the political scenario at the time immediately preceding the formation of the two dominions. That these were influential groups which each made the statement showed a complete dichotomy which was existing in the princess state. Pertinent to note is the history of the National Conference which was formed as a Muslim Interest group opposing the Dogra rule and which changed its stance to be inclusive and 'secular' whence it realised the the British intervention had changed the tide against it in the state (the same astute political sense dictated its policies vis-a-vis India post signing of the Instrument of Accession.

The take-over of the State Government by the British in the wake of the Muslim agitation ultimately brought the Muslims to a dead end. In due course of time they found the British were now the virtual masters in the State. The support, the Muslims had received from the Muslims in Punjab also waned mainly because of the British patronage as the British consolidated their hold over the erstwhile Sikh Empire. The British inspiration and patronage to the Muslims in Punjab to rise against the Dogras had also ceased. The Muslim leadership did not take long to realize that the Dogras were an adjunct of the British empire in India and any struggle against them was inconceivable except within the context of freedom from British dominance. The elections and the formation of the Congress Ministries in the British Indian Provinces in 1937, inspired the Muslim leadership to break out of its religious moorings and with the active support of the Hindus and Sikhs, who, had opposed the Muslim agitation vehemently, founded a broad based and secular movement for political emancipation of the people of the State. In 1939, the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference was converted into a secular political party. The Muslim leaders amended the Constitution of the Muslim Conference, renamed it as the All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, modified its objectives and threw its membership open to all the people of the State.

The National Conference committed itself to a secular struggle for Indian freedom, the realization of a political India comprising the British Indian Provinces and the Indian States and institution of self-rule in the States. The Conference affiliated itself to the All India States' Peoples’ Conferences, which spearheaded the liberation struggle in the Indian States. The National Conference conducted a vigorous campaign in the State for the institution of self-government and constitutional reforms. However, it was plunged into a crisis when the Muslim League adopted the Pakistan resolution in March 1940. The League resolution envisaged the reorganization of the Muslim majority provinces in India into a separate and an independent Muslim State of Pakistan. A large section of Conference leaders and ranks, mostly from Jammu, advocated the acceptance of the League resolution for Pakistan on the plea that the Muslims in the State formed a part of the Muslim India and, therefore, their aspirations wore bound with the creation of Pakistan. The Conference rejected the League resolution and the leaders and cadres who advocated the acceptance of Pakistan resolution abandoned the Conference.

On 13 June 1941, the breakaway factions of the National Conference revived the erstwhile Muslims Conference. Chowdhry Ghulam Abbas was elected the President of the Conference. In the open session of the Conference, Abbas called upon the Muslims in the State to support the League demand for Pakistan, a situation which was met with significant public support.

From above stated lines, I am trying to impress upon you the situation that existed on ground and that which India was to face subsequently. You have raised Article 370, a point I shall delve into subsequent to the cover of the political and military scenario covering a period till 1950.

But as a pointer, are you aware that the difference on the status of J&K was only brought to fore in 1951 and after the incorporation of the Constitution of India in 1950? That all the provisions which you have slammed were extended to all the princely states while categorising them as Category A to C in the period immediately following the independence without exception initially in order to facilitate the same model that the British had, to extend over the new nation of India? That there was a gradual absorption of these princely states under the managed federalism which refused to give credence to sub nationalities as being professed at the time?

If so was the case, who was stupid to grant a special status to J&K violating the original Instrument of Accession Act of 1947 and Article 1 of the Constitution of India when there were no pre-conditions being raised by the people of Kashmir in the first place?

@Zibago suggest can the nationalistic troll oriented rhetoric here and post something sensible, if we wanted another stupid India Pakistan troll fest would not be posted in senior cafe. As a Pakistani who dithered from responsibility of helping the Kashmiris (and you were in a position to do so post UN resolution by suo-moto and unilateral withdrawal of forces from Kashmir thus forcing India to act on its promises and undertakings to the UN of holding a plebiscite/referendum and then take subsequent actions keeping in view the general wishes of the Kashmir valley) in 1947 itself, you have absolutely no moral standing to post the nonsense you have posted as your actions or inactions in 1947 have equally contributed to the mess Kashmir is in today.

Please don't derail the thread.

@Joe Shearer Sir I am putting only bare minimum ... waiting for you beef up when you get time. Will be a long haul and am trying to cover with periods so that overall gross stupidities at political level can be brought out irrespective of the nationalities concerned.

 

[Soumitra]

Radical solution to Kashmir-
1 Remove article 370
2 Give incentives for indians from other parts to start business and settle down in the valley.
3 Make kashmir economically dependent on the rest of India.
4 use settlements to dilute the presence of radical muslims and Pakistan / ISIS sympathisers

 

[Zibago]

@Zibago suggest can the nationalistic troll oriented rhetoric here and post something sensible, if we wanted another stupid India Pakistan troll fest would not be posted in senior cafe. As a Pakistani who dithered from responsibility of helping the Kashmiris (and you were in a position to do so post UN resolution by suo-moto and unilateral withdrawal of forces from Kashmir thus forcing India to act on its promises and undertakings to the UN of holding a plebiscite/referendum and then take subsequent actions keeping in view the general wishes of the Kashmir valley) in 1947 itself, you have absolutely no moral standing to post the nonsense you have posted as your actions or inactions in 1947 have equally contributed to the mess Kashmir is in today.

De militarize and let India take over no thank you and army in AJK is mostly located on LOC region adjacent to Indian check points
If there is guarantee from the the other side that they will not start a skirmish and actually go ahead with a referendum in Kashmir we have no objection we already know the support for India in the valley

The message for your side is quite simple:

Not the answer to my question why this is ok
http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/story/223228.html
So jeering against occupying forces gets you death in IOK hmm

 

[Nilgiri]

Not the answer to my question why this is ok
http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/story/223228.html
So jeering against occupying forces gets you death in IOK hmm

The question/message has nothing to do with the topic at hand which is about Kashmir's autonomy within India. There are plenty of other topics where your question is not derailing.

My video reply was all the violence we see today ultimately stems from Pakistan trying to take Kashmir by force in 48 and then not complying with implementing the first unconditional part of the UN resolution process which was clearly defined.

Again its going off topic.

 

[Zibago]

The question/message has nothing to do with the topic at hand which is about Kashmir's autonomy within India. There are plenty of other topics where your question is not derailing.

My video reply was all the violence we see today ultimately stems from Pakistan trying to take Kashmir by force in 48 and then not complying with implementing the first unconditional part of the UN resolution process which was clearly defined.

Again its going off topic.

48 started from a rebellion by farmers in Poonch

 

[Nilgiri]

48 started from a rebellion by farmers in Poonch

Whatever ignited it, Pakistan would have been better off not sending its forces to begin with....or at least to comply with the UN resolution that called for withdrawal first before a plebiscite could proceed.

But you did not trust India back then, and kept your forces where they stood....and that lack of trust spilled over to our side as well as a result and it has only grown and deepened on both sides as history unfurled and other incidents happened in due course.

No side now can take back what it has commited national dignity and identity to....and innocents and some not so innocent pay the price each year for it.....be it Kashmir or Baluchistan....or East Pakistan before that.

We have to live with it, stabilize, get more prosperous, keep the fingers as far away from the self-annihilation button that we have both developed....and then hope in future it can be resolved reasonably in both sides eyes under hopefully a more progressive generation. It is still too early now for it to happen but we got to keep the hope alive and give that future generation a chance.

I wouldn't hold my breath on Armenia and the Azeris making headway either on their status quo for much the same reason....lack of trust and much bad blood thats still too raw.

In fact it would be interesting which one gets solved first

 

[Hellfire]

De militarize and let India take over no thank you and army in AJK is mostly located on LOC region adjacent to Indian check points
If there is guarantee from the the other side that they will not start a skirmish and actually go ahead with a referendum in Kashmir we have no objection we already know the support for India in the valley

Again, the first part is irrelevant, majority of concentration of forces is along LC even on Indian side and the figure of 700000 which your fellow country members keep harping on, is ridiculous in politest of terms. However, I digress.

For the bold part, do take the trouble to read the thread posts sequentially, don't dissect and isolate as an already nonsensical history will become more convoluted. The rape and pillage from Uri till Pattan that your hordes of tribesmen reinforced by your military personnel wreaked on Kahmir valley left you in no position to successfully win in a plebiscite had India conducted on e that year. That is the only reason why Pakistan did not withdraw which was the precondition for Indian withdrawal and conduct of plebiscite.

Your claims above are mere bluster. Had you indeed been sure of winning it, the polity of Pakistan was wily and smart enough to have had done it then itself (you had people who had won a nation in mere seven years for themselves). On the other hand, the stupidity of Indian polity is what is being discussed here .... that is why the pertinence of Pakistan in this thread is miniscule. Demonstrated stupidity of India is the focus here.

Don't make it about yourself. Post facts or desist from derailing all.

 

[Hellfire]

The struggle for responsible government culminated in the formation of the National Conference which pledged itself to the achievement of responsible government in the state as well as a united and independent India.

Whereas the All State‟s Muslim League Conference in a meeting at Lahore endorsed the Muslim League‟s resolution of 23rd March, 1940 for the creation of Pakistan. But the National Conference leadership repudiated the league resolution for the division of the country and separation of the Muslim majority regions. Sheikh Abdullah attended the session of the All States Muslim League as an observer. After his return to Srinagar he called upon the Muslims to join Indian National Congress which he declared was the only representative organisation of the people of India.

This shows Sheikh Abdullah‟s secular attitude towards Indian National Congress and his relations with India.

On the other hand the development and growth of popular movement and democratic institutions in the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir had its impact on the development of relations between the state and Indian union. The struggle launched by the Indian National Congress to free the country, its policy towards the states and the struggle carried on by All India States‟ People‟s Conference drew the people of Jammu and Kashmir closer into the orbit of the nationalist movement. The All India States People‟s Conference which integrated most of the state level organisations also broadened the base and coordinated its activities with the National Conference. Leaders of the Indian National Congress like Mahatama Gandhi, Jawahar lal Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad took great and active interest not only in people‟s movement in other states but in the state of Jammu and Kashmir also.

Under these circumstances the Dogra rulers of Jammu and Kashmir had no option but to grant concessions to the people and introduce constitutional reforms in the state from time to time. After the partition of India in 1947 and lapse of British paramountcy, the state was plunged into a severe political crisis. Maharaja Hari Singh could not decide the issue of accession for more than two months after the British withdrawal from the subcontinent. Gandhiji‟s paternal advice and Mountbatten‟s persuasion had no effect on the Maharaja Hari Singh. If the Maharaja had decided to accede to India or to Pakistan before 15th August, 1947, much of this trouble and bitterness may well have been avoided. But perhaps, he was fondling with the idea of independence and was relying on his Dogra forces to achieve this end.

At the same time fearing break down of the communication system through Pakistan and the rich export system with India, Maharaja offered to sign Standstill Agreement with both India and Pakistan aiming at continuing the existing relationship pending his final decision regarding the future of the state. Pakistan entered into standstill agreement but Indian government led by Jawaharlal Nehru refused to sign the agreement without the involvement of popular political party, the National Conference.

However Pakistan did not honour her obligations and started an economic blockade of the state cutting off supplies of food, petrol, cloth, salt and other essential commodities in the hope that hunger would secure the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan. Besides, Pakistan also applied military pressure in the form of a full-fledged tribal invasion of the state by 22nd October, 1947. In such dark period of crisis the National Conference organised a people‟s militia of 15,000 men, women and children. The Dogra Army and National Militia tried to hold the enemy from rushing inside the state territory, but prolonged resistance to well trained and well equipped invaders was out of the question.

Under these circumstances Maharaja decided to accede to Indian Union to save his state. So on 26th October, 1947 Maharaja signed Instrument of Accession which was accepted by Lord Mountbatten on 27th October, 1947. This accession was legally made by the Maharaja on the advice of Sheikh Abdullah, the leader of All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, the political party commanding the widest popular support in the state. Thereafter, the future relationship between the state and the Union of India had to be based on the Instrument of Accession.

In the Instrument of Accession, jurisdiction in matters of Defence, External Affairs and Communications was transferred to the Government of India and the Union Parliament was given power to make laws for the state with respect to these three matters only. The Union Parliament had no jurisdiction in any other matter. The state was reserved powers in regard to all the residuary subjects and the terms of the Instrument of Accession were not to be altered by any subsequent amendment of the Indian Independence Act, unless such an amendment was accepted by the ruler of the state by a supplementary instrument.

Thus, the provisions of the Constitution of India pertaining to the governments in the Indian states were not made applicable to Jammu and Kashmir and the state was administered by an interim government for a long period of nine years in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, which the Ruler of the state had promulgated in 1939.

Though a Muslim state, Jammu and Kashmir agreed to join Indian Union because of communal harmony in Jammu and Kashmir between people of all religions even in the days of British suzerainty. Another reason which facilitated accession of the state to India was the friendship which had developed between Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru. Sheikh Abdullah‟s movement for freedom from the autocratic rule of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir was supported by Jawaharlal Nehru where as Mohammad Ali Jinnah opposed it. This movement had gained popularity by 1947. Finally the most proximate reason was the attack on Jammu and Kashmir in October, 1947 by tribal raiders, supported by Pakistan. Here, Pakistan had expected that the local population would rise in favour of the tribal raiders but the people of Jammu and Kashmir opposed the invasion of the raiders.

However, the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharaja Hari Singh was the same as was executed by the rulers of other princely states acceding to India. There was no condition attached to the accession which provided for any separate set of constitutional relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and the Dominion of India. Leadership of National Conference supported accession and laid no conditions for the accession of the state to India except that they demanded the transfer of power to the people of the state, to which the Indian government was equally committed.

The tribal invasion of state had turned into a full-fledged war and Pakistan had occupied a large part of the state territory. So, Lord Mountbatten, the then Governor-General of India, while accepting the Instrument of Accession, wrote in a letter to the ruler of the state that as soon as law and order was restored in Jammu and Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders, it was his government‟s wish, in conformity with their policy in case of disputed accession, that “the question of state’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people.” This was not a part of the Instrument of Accession, therefore, it does not and cannot affect the legality of the accession. The same assurance to the people of Jammu and Kashmir was also given thereafter on several occasions by Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister. The congress leaders on their part believed that the people of Jammu and Kashmir guided by their popular leader Sheikh Abdullah would opt for India in case a free vote was taken.

Thus the accession was made first and the offer of plebiscite was made unilaterally to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, though it was not asked for, Pakistan did not come into picture anywhere. Mehr Chand Mahajan in his autobiography „Looking Back‟ writes, “On the faith of the document of accession crores of Indian tax payers money has been spent on the defence and development of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. No Indian statesman had any power or right to spend all this money if there was any doubt about the finality of accession. It was a political mistake on the part of the Government of India to have given the promise to hold a plebiscite. The Government of India probably did not realise the political and various other consequences of a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir.”

The government of United Kingdom has never questioned and indeed could never question this act of accession which was made directly under the enactments of the British Parliament. This fact was recognised by the United Nations Commission in its report submitted to the United Nations and defined in its resolution of 13th August, 1948 and 5th January, 1949. Thus, accession was unconditional, voluntary and absolute. It bound the state of Jammu and Kashmir and India legally and constitutionally. With this Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of the Union of India.

As war was going on between India and Pakistan and no agreement on Jammu and Kashmir could take place. So on the advice of Lord Mountbatten, Jawahar lal Nehru referred the matter to the United Nations on 31st December, 1947. K.K. Misra in his book “Kashmir and India’s Foreign Policy”, writes “it was a tactical mistake on the part of the Indian government to have referred the matter to the United Nations before freeing the whole of Jammu and Kashmir from the savage raiders. Besides, by referring the matter to the Security Council, India indirectly became a party to the dispute.”

Immediately after accession the relations of Jammu and Kashmir with Union of India were influenced by the two poles of power in the state, the ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh and the popular leader, Sheikh Abdullah and their mutual relations.

Finally by an agreement between centre and state leadership, Mehr Chand Mahajan remained the Prime Minister of the state and Sheikh Abdullah was appointed Head of the emergency administration on 31st October, 1947. But in subsequent months there was lack of coordination between Prime Minister Mehr Chand Mahajan and Sheikh Abdullah. They made the issue „a point of Honour‟ and therefore centre proposed Mysore model for Jammu and Kashmir.

Under the „Mysore model‟ Sheikh Abdullah was to be made the Prime Minister and Mehr Chand Mahajan as Dewan was to continue as one of the ministers and serve as a link between the Maharaja and the ministry. However, Sheikh Abdullah did not like the Dewan to function as a link between him and the Maharaja while on the contrary Maharaja Hari Singh, wanted the Dewan to continue. Finally, Gopalswami Ayyangar devised another scheme under which the office of Dewan was abolished and Mehr Chand Mahajan was relieved of his office.

Thus, the early phase of the politics of the state as part of independent India was polarised between Maharaja Hari Singh and Sheikh Abdullah. Both were deeply conscious of their respective distinct identities and none was enthusiastic about merging his personality or that of the state in the national mainstream. Temperamental incompatibility, past bitterness, ideological divergence and differences over share of political power rather than differences on status of the state, once again prevented the Maharaja and Sheikh Abdullah from posing any common threat to the state‟s relations with the centre. Moreover, their emotional and political dependence on mutual conflicts on their patrons in New Delhi, Jawahar lal Nehru in case of Sheikh Abdullah and Sardar Patel in case of Hari Singh helped the centre to maintain its grip over the state. As none of them could represent the whole of the state, they looked to the bigger power at the centre to resolve their internal feud. Thus Hari Singh-Sheikh Abdullah polarisation was however, a peculiar mixture of communal, regional and ideological factors.

At the United Nations Security Council only a game of power politics was played and its members adjusted their attitude towards the Jammu and Kashmir issue as their foreign policy interests dictated. The Anglo-American block right from beginning had given unflinching support to Pakistan. The American took their cue from the British who had all along a soft corner for Muslim league that had remained aloof from the mainstream of the struggle for independence waged by the Indian National Congress.

Thus, a number of draft resolutions were put forward by the members of United Nations Security Council but they favoured Pakistan predominantly. This attitude of the western powers caused a deep resentment in India. According to Sheikh Abdullah, “Napolean Bonaparte had described the British as a nation of shopkeepers never closing sight of their personal interest. They supported Pakistan because they wanted to use it as a bridge to establish close relations with oil rich Arab nations.” So in the face of these challenges from outside, Sheikh Abdullah and his administration developed a close psychological bond with New Delhi.

The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan when reached India and Pakistan in July, 1948, the members were stunned when they themselves saw that all forces were fighting under the command of Pakistan army. Thus, the truth which India had been pressing the Security Council to recognize about Pakistan‟s actual involvement in the aggression on the state of Jammu and Kashmir finally came out. However, owing to the politics of the super powers the question of Jammu and Kashmir has so far defied the solution. This had enabled Pakistan to continue its occupation of so called Azad Kashmir.

The state of Jammu and Kashmir occupies a special position in comparison to other states because of the strategic location of the state and the unnatural circumstances in which it acceded to India. Another reason that can be cited for the special position of the state is that one third of the state was, and is, still, under the occupation of Pakistan. Even today 25 seats in the legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir have been kept reserved for the representatives of that area.

In 1949, when the Constitution of India was getting its final touches, there was still much uncertainty about the future political status of Jammu and Kashmir. Where as all other Princely states which had acceded to Indian Union consented to their full integration politically, constitutionally, administratively and financially, the state of Jammu and Kashmir, however, hesitated to do so. The representatives of the state participated in the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly of India but its leadership wanted a far greater measure of autonomy than the constitution of India had envisaged for the other states of the Union of India. They demanded that state should be allowed to have its own Constituent Assembly to draft separate constitution within the framework of the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharaja. Consequently special constitutional provision in the form of Article 370 was put in the Constitution of India, whereby the state was given the right to convene a Constituent Assembly and frame its own Constitution.

At the same time the relations between the state and the Centre were to be governed under Article 370. According to it the Indian Parliament could make laws for the state on matters that correspond to the subjects specified in the Instrument of Accession i.e. Defence, External Affairs and Communications. Also the President of India was given the power to authorise legislation on other matters, but only with the concurrence of the state government. Finally Article 370 gave power to the President of India, to abrogate the article or modify its provisions provided he secured the recommendations of the future Constituent Assembly of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Indian Constitution took effect formally on 26th January, 1950. In this Constitution only Article 1 and 370 were applied to the Jammu and Kashmir state. Article 1 defined the territories of India and specifically included the Jammu and Kashmir state within its boundaries. In exercise of the power conferred on him by the Article 370, Dr Rajendra Prasad, the then President of India passed a Presidential order called the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1950, defining the jurisdiction of the Union Parliament vis-a-vis the state of Jammu and Kashmir and enumerating the specific provisions of the Constitution of India that could be made applicable to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The provisions were only the elaboration of the subjects which had already been mentioned in the Instrument of Accession and which had since been incorporated in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. The reaction of the people of the state to the implementation of Indian Constitution was one of total satisfaction. In a speech to Jammu Bar Association on 5th February, 1950, Sheikh Abdullah, the then Prime Minister, told his audience that, “India’s republican Constitution itself has made it clear that Jammu and Kashmir has an honourable and secure place in India”. After this the state Constituent Assembly was convened in 1951.

Up till now Sheikh Abdullah was happy with the central leadership because he was given what he wanted i.e. special status under Article 370 and Constituent Assembly to frame its own Constitution and thus placed Jammu and Kashmir on a different footing from other states of India. But, the state leaders were far from being satisfied. They said in their speeches that they wanted the maximum possible autonomy for the state. Sheikh Abdullah, the Prime Minister of the state, after some time showed signs of change in his attitude towards India which was visible through his speeches. In one of the speech he said that the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was a sovereign body which was free to give shape to the destiny of the state in any manner it pleased. Sometimes he talked about the independence of the state. This changed attitude of Sheikh Abdullah and such statements raised a controversy, so much so that the central leadership decided to start a dialogue with Sheikh Abdullah and his colleagues.

The dialogue resulted into the Delhi Agreement of 1952. The Centre-State leadership agreed that the Hereditary Ruler will be replaced by the elected head of state designated as Sadar-i-Riyasat recognised by the President of India and hold office during the pleasure of the President. Further it was agreed that the provisions relating to citizenship and fundamental rights should be made applicable to the state but with certain modifications. The Indian flag was to be recognised supreme and use of state flag and an official language of its own sanctioned and all residuary powers were to vest with the state.

However, Sheikh Abdullah and his colleagues differed with the Union Government in their interpretation of the provisions of the Delhi Agreement. They felt that the agreement had put the seal on the autonomy of the state. On the other hand central leadership felt that as soon as the special circumstances ceased to exist, state would be fully integrated into the union of India, of course, with the consent of the people of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Under the provisions of Delhi Agreement hereditary rulership was abolished but no steps were taken to implement other provisions. This created a chaotic situation in the state which ultimately led to dismissal and arrest of Sheikh Abdullah on 8th August, 1953.

After the dismissal and detention of Sheikh Abdullah, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was appointed the Prime Minister of the state. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad obtained the unanimous vote of confidence from the state legislative assembly. On 15th February, 1954 the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir ratified state‟s accession to India. Further to strengthen the relations between centre and state of Jammu and Kashmir Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad had abolished on 13th April, 1954 the custom duties on goods entering the state which resulted in lowering prices of essential commodities.

Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad secured the approval of the Constituent Assembly of the state to implement the Delhi Agreement. Accordingly, in May, 1954, the provisions of the Constitution of India as envisaged by the Delhi Agreement were also made applicable to the state of Jammu and Kashmir and it was brought within the Constitutional framework of India.

The process of Constitution making was also expedited during the regime of Bakshi. The Constituent Assembly drew up a Constitution for the state by amending suitably the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act, 1939. It completed this task in 1956 and the Constitution was finally approved and adopted unanimously on 17th November, 1956. It came into effect on 26th January, 1957. The people of the state had chosen 26th January, the Republic day of India as the date for enforcement of their Constitution and this is the evidence of the emotional integration with the rest of India.

The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir declared the state of Jammu and Kashmir to be an integral part of the Union of India. The territory of the state will comprise which on 15th August, 1947, were under the sovereignty of the ruler of the state. Most of its provisions were patterned and borrowed from the Constitution of India though subject to certain exceptions and modifications depending upon the local needs and the exigencies of the state. The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is partly rigid and partly flexible. The proviso to section 147 specifies those features of the constitution which are unalterable or rigid. The state legislature is debarred from undertaking any amendment of the constitution affecting the state‟s accession to India or the extent of the executive and legislative powers of the state. Other matters like defence, external affairs and communication, in the constitution being outside the scope of the legislature, may be regarded as rigid for the purpose of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution but they are flexible in so far as the powers of the Union Parliament are concerned.

credit: some obscure author whose work was saved on my hard disk. Don't recall the name

@Stephen Cohen for your perusal. Sheikh Abdullah and the National Conference, which fought for a special status under constitution of India for J&K, increasingly sought to abdicate the responsibility of holding a plebiscite by early 1950 and tried to keep up a charade by insisting on the special provisions of the State under the Indian Constitution. Shall be posting write up on the same shortly.

It is pertinent to note, that I have brought out a rough sketch of the duplicity of both the Kashmiris themselves and the abject failure of the Indian government and politicians during the same period.

Your contention on Article 370, while justified, falls flat as there was no concentrated legal attempt by India to integrate Kashmir in a time bound manner. Even today there is a hesitancy in suspension of Article 370 by enacting a law in the parliament.

You had stated about Indira Gandhi's attempt at subverting these clauses to better integrate the state. But it could not be further from the truth. She had the necessary strength in the Parliament post 1971, why did she not enact the amendment when she could get one through to insert socialism into the preamble to the constitution? Why, indeed, she did not settle the question of Kashmir at Simla itself?

The answer, my friend, is not simple. It is a deliberate attempt at sabotaging the nation, the logic of which I am unable to fathom. That is why, killing the Kashmiris on the street means nothing when your own laws prevent them from being made Indians.

Radical solution to Kashmir-
1 Remove article 370
2 Give incentives for indians from other parts to start business and settle down in the valley.
3 Make kashmir economically dependent on the rest of India.
4 use settlements to dilute the presence of radical muslims and Pakistan / ISIS sympathisers

How is Article 370 an impediment? When as per J&K's own constitution it is an integral part of India, what makes the indian politicians hesitate from enacting a law to repeal the article itself and incorporate it as all other princely states had been?

That is why, we have been saying that the issue requires to be settled politically. Brute military force is not the answer in valley.

For the average Kashmiri, it is a fight for 'azadi' @Levina as our own policies have allowed an environment wherein the complete and gradual integration of the state as not taken place.

So how is @Joe Shearer wrong, as you quoted earlier? If you look at things from a Kashmiri's perspective, they have not been given a chance to integrate with the nation. A policy of 'ghetto' structure had been formulated by Nehru against all logic and advice on the basis that the violence of partition required the displaced Muslims to be placed together in order to feel 'secure'. Instead of working to improve the security for all citizens irrespective of the religious identity, he proceeded to put the Muslims in a situation wherein they got isolated and felt surrounded by a hostile Hindu population.

Have you ever had the chance to visit Islamabad at Deoband (there is an Islamabad there behind the seminary)?

There a muslim once asked me "aapki hindustani sarkar ne hamarey liye kya kia hai" It was a shocker for me.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

The struggle for responsible government culminated in the formation of the National Conference which pledged itself to the achievement of responsible government in the state as well as a united and independent India.

Whereas the All State‟s Muslim League Conference in a meeting at Lahore endorsed the Muslim League‟s resolution of 23rd March, 1940 for the creation of Pakistan. But the National Conference leadership repudiated the league resolution for the division of the country and separation of the Muslim majority regions. Sheikh Abdullah attended the session of the All States Muslim League as an observer. After his return to Srinagar he called upon the Muslims to join Indian National Congress which he declared was the only representative organisation of the people of India.

This shows Sheikh Abdullah‟s secular attitude towards Indian National Congress and his relations with India.

On the other hand the development and growth of popular movement and democratic institutions in the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir had its impact on the development of relations between the state and Indian union. The struggle launched by the Indian National Congress to free the country, its policy towards the states and the struggle carried on by All India States‟ People‟s Conference drew the people of Jammu and Kashmir closer into the orbit of the nationalist movement. The All India States People‟s Conference which integrated most of the state level organisations also broadened the base and coordinated its activities with the National Conference. Leaders of the Indian National Congress like Mahatama Gandhi, Jawahar lal Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad took great and active interest not only in people‟s movement in other states but in the state of Jammu and Kashmir also.

Under these circumstances the Dogra rulers of Jammu and Kashmir had no option but to grant concessions to the people and introduce constitutional reforms in the state from time to time. After the partition of India in 1947 and lapse of British paramountcy, the state was plunged into a severe political crisis. Maharaja Hari Singh could not decide the issue of accession for more than two months after the British withdrawal from the subcontinent. Gandhiji‟s paternal advice and Mountbatten‟s persuasion had no effect on the Maharaja Hari Singh. If the Maharaja had decided to accede to India or to Pakistan before 15th August, 1947, much of this trouble and bitterness may well have been avoided. But perhaps, he was fondling with the idea of independence and was relying on his Dogra forces to achieve this end.

At the same time fearing break down of the communication system through Pakistan and the rich export system with India, Maharaja offered to sign Standstill Agreement with both India and Pakistan aiming at continuing the existing relationship pending his final decision regarding the future of the state. Pakistan entered into standstill agreement but Indian government led by Jawaharlal Nehru refused to sign the agreement without the involvement of popular political party, the National Conference.

However Pakistan did not honour her obligations and started an economic blockade of the state cutting off supplies of food, petrol, cloth, salt and other essential commodities in the hope that hunger would secure the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan. Besides, Pakistan also applied military pressure in the form of a full-fledged tribal invasion of the state by 22nd October, 1947. In such dark period of crisis the National Conference organised a people‟s militia of 15,000 men, women and children. The Dogra Army and National Militia tried to hold the enemy from rushing inside the state territory, but prolonged resistance to well trained and well equipped invaders was out of the question.

Under these circumstances Maharaja decided to accede to Indian Union to save his state. So on 26th October, 1947 Maharaja signed Instrument of Accession which was accepted by Lord Mountbatten on 27th October, 1947. This accession was legally made by the Maharaja on the advice of Sheikh Abdullah, the leader of All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, the political party commanding the widest popular support in the state. Thereafter, the future relationship between the state and the Union of India had to be based on the Instrument of Accession.

In the Instrument of Accession, jurisdiction in matters of Defence, External Affairs and Communications was transferred to the Government of India and the Union Parliament was given power to make laws for the state with respect to these three matters only. The Union Parliament had no jurisdiction in any other matter. The state was reserved powers in regard to all the residuary subjects and the terms of the Instrument of Accession were not to be altered by any subsequent amendment of the Indian Independence Act, unless such an amendment was accepted by the ruler of the state by a supplementary instrument.

Thus, the provisions of the Constitution of India pertaining to the governments in the Indian states were not made applicable to Jammu and Kashmir and the state was administered by an interim government for a long period of nine years in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, which the Ruler of the state had promulgated in 1939.

Though a Muslim state, Jammu and Kashmir agreed to join Indian Union because of communal harmony in Jammu and Kashmir between people of all religions even in the days of British suzerainty. Another reason which facilitated accession of the state to India was the friendship which had developed between Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru. Sheikh Abdullah‟s movement for freedom from the autocratic rule of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir was supported by Jawaharlal Nehru where as Mohammad Ali Jinnah opposed it. This movement had gained popularity by 1947. Finally the most proximate reason was the attack on Jammu and Kashmir in October, 1947 by tribal raiders, supported by Pakistan. Here, Pakistan had expected that the local population would rise in favour of the tribal raiders but the people of Jammu and Kashmir opposed the invasion of the raiders.

However, the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharaja Hari Singh was the same as was executed by the rulers of other princely states acceding to India. There was no condition attached to the accession which provided for any separate set of constitutional relationship between Jammu and Kashmir and the Dominion of India. Leadership of National Conference supported accession and laid no conditions for the accession of the state to India except that they demanded the transfer of power to the people of the state, to which the Indian government was equally committed.

The tribal invasion of state had turned into a full-fledged war and Pakistan had occupied a large part of the state territory. So, Lord Mountbatten, the then Governor-General of India, while accepting the Instrument of Accession, wrote in a letter to the ruler of the state that as soon as law and order was restored in Jammu and Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invaders, it was his government‟s wish, in conformity with their policy in case of disputed accession, that “the question of state’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people.” This was not a part of the Instrument of Accession, therefore, it does not and cannot affect the legality of the accession. The same assurance to the people of Jammu and Kashmir was also given thereafter on several occasions by Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister. The congress leaders on their part believed that the people of Jammu and Kashmir guided by their popular leader Sheikh Abdullah would opt for India in case a free vote was taken.

Thus the accession was made first and the offer of plebiscite was made unilaterally to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, though it was not asked for, Pakistan did not come into picture anywhere. Mehr Chand Mahajan in his autobiography „Looking Back‟ writes, “On the faith of the document of accession crores of Indian tax payers money has been spent on the defence and development of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. No Indian statesman had any power or right to spend all this money if there was any doubt about the finality of accession. It was a political mistake on the part of the Government of India to have given the promise to 426

hold a plebiscite. The Government of India probably did not realise the political and various other consequences of a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir.”

The government of United Kingdom has never questioned and indeed could never question this act of accession which was made directly under the enactments of the British Parliament. This fact was recognised by the United Nations Commission in its report submitted to the United Nations and defined in its resolution of 13th August, 1948 and 5th January, 1949. Thus, accession was unconditional, voluntary and absolute. It bound the state of Jammu and Kashmir and India legally and constitutionally. With this Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of the Union of India.

As war was going on between India and Pakistan and no agreement on Jammu and Kashmir could take place. So on the advice of Lord Mountbatten, Jawahar lal Nehru referred the matter to the United Nations on 31st December, 1947. K.K. Misra in his book “Kashmir and India’s Foreign Policy”, writes “it was a tactical mistake on the part of the Indian government to have referred the matter to the United Nations before freeing the whole of Jammu and Kashmir from the savage raiders. Besides, by referring the matter to the Security Council, India indirectly became a party to the dispute.”

Immediately after accession the relations of Jammu and Kashmir with Union of India were influenced by the two poles of power in the state, the ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh and the popular leader, Sheikh Abdullah and their mutual relations.

Finally by an agreement between centre and state leadership, Mehr Chand Mahajan remained the Prime Minister of the state and Sheikh Abdullah was appointed Head of the emergency administration on 31st October, 1947. But in subsequent months there was lack of coordination between Prime Minister Mehr Chand Mahajan and Sheikh Abdullah. They made the issue „a point of Honour‟ and therefore centre proposed Mysore model for Jammu and Kashmir.

Under the „Mysore model‟ Sheikh Abdullah was to be made the Prime Minister and Mehr Chand Mahajan as Dewan was to continue as one of the ministers and serve as a link between the Maharaja and the ministry. However, Sheikh Abdullah did not like the Dewan to function as a link between him and the Maharaja while on the contrary Maharaja Hari Singh, wanted the Dewan to continue. Finally, Gopalswami Ayyangar devised another scheme under which the office of Dewan was abolished and Mehr Chand Mahajan was relieved of his office.

Thus, the early phase of the politics of the state as part of independent India was polarised between Maharaja Hari Singh and Sheikh Abdullah. Both were deeply conscious of their respective distinct identities and none was enthusiastic about merging his personality or that of the state in the national mainstream. Temperamental incompatibility, past bitterness, ideological divergence and differences over share of political power rather than differences on status of the state, once again prevented the Maharaja and Sheikh Abdullah from posing any common threat to the state‟s relations with the centre. Moreover, their emotional and political dependence on mutual conflicts on their patrons in New Delhi, Jawahar lal Nehru in case of Sheikh Abdullah and Sardar Patel in case of Hari Singh helped the centre to maintain its grip over the state. As none of them could represent the whole of the state, they looked to the bigger power at the centre to resolve their internal feud. Thus Hari Singh-Sheikh Abdullah polarisation was however, a peculiar mixture of communal, regional and ideological factors.

At the United Nations Security Council only a game of power politics was played and its members adjusted their attitude towards the Jammu and Kashmir issue as their foreign policy interests dictated. The Anglo-American block right from beginning had given unflinching support to Pakistan. The American took their cue from the British who had all along a soft corner for Muslim league that had remained aloof from the mainstream of the struggle for independence waged by the Indian National Congress.

Thus, a number of draft resolutions were put forward by the members of United Nations Security Council but they favoured Pakistan predominantly. This attitude of the western powers caused a deep resentment in India. According to Sheikh Abdullah, “Napolean Bonaparte had described the British as a nation of shopkeepers never closing sight of their personal interest. They supported Pakistan because they wanted to use it as a bridge to establish close relations with oil rich Arab nations.” So in the face of these challenges from outside, Sheikh Abdullah and his administration developed a close psychological bond with New Delhi.

The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan when reached India and Pakistan in July, 1948, the members were stunned when they themselves saw that all forces were fighting under the command of Pakistan army. Thus, the truth which India had been pressing the Security Council to recognize about Pakistan‟s actual involvement in the aggression on the state of Jammu and Kashmir finally came out. However, owing to the politics of the super powers the question of Jammu and Kashmir has so far defied the solution. This had enabled Pakistan to continue its occupation of so called Azad Kashmir.

The state of Jammu and Kashmir occupies a special position in comparison to other states because of the strategic location of the state and the unnatural circumstances in which it acceded to India. Another reason that can be cited for the special position of the state is that one third of the state was, and is, still, under the occupation of Pakistan. Even today 25 seats in the legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir have been kept reserved for the representatives of that area.

In 1949, when the Constitution of India was getting its final touches, there was still much uncertainty about the future political status of Jammu and Kashmir. Where as all other Princely states which had acceded to Indian Union consented to their full integration politically, constitutionally, administratively and financially, the state of Jammu and Kashmir, however, hesitated to do so. The representatives of the state participated in the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly of India but its leadership wanted a far greater measure of autonomy than the constitution of India had envisaged for the other states of the Union of India. They demanded that state should be allowed to have its own Constituent Assembly to draft separate constitution within the framework of the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharaja. Consequently special constitutional provision in the form of Article 370 was put in the Constitution of India, whereby the state was given the right to convene a Constituent Assembly and frame its own Constitution.

At the same time the relations between the state and the Centre were to be governed under Article 370. According to it the Indian Parliament could make laws for the state on matters that correspond to the subjects specified in the Instrument of Accession i.e. Defence, External Affairs and Communications. Also the President of India was given the power to authorise legislation on other matters, but only with the concurrence of the state government. Finally Article 370 gave power to the President of India, to abrogate the article or modify its provisions provided he secured the recommendations of the future Constituent Assembly of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Indian Constitution took effect formally on 26th January, 1950. In this Constitution only Article 1 and 370 were applied to the Jammu and Kashmir state. Article 1 defined the territories of India and specifically included the Jammu and Kashmir state within its boundaries. In exercise of the power conferred on him by the Article 370, Dr Rajendra Prasad, the then President of India passed a Presidential order called the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1950, defining the jurisdiction of the Union Parliament vis-a-vis the state of Jammu and Kashmir and enumerating the specific provisions of the Constitution of India that could be made applicable to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The provisions were only the elaboration of the subjects which had already been mentioned in the Instrument of Accession and which had since been incorporated in the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. The reaction of the people of the state to the implementation of Indian Constitution was one of total satisfaction. In a speech to Jammu Bar Association on 5th February, 1950, Sheikh Abdullah, the then Prime Minister, told his audience that, “India’s republican Constitution itself has made it clear that Jammu and Kashmir has an honourable and secure place in India”. After this the state Constituent Assembly was convened in 1951.

Up till now Sheikh Abdullah was happy with the central leadership because he was given what he wanted i.e. special status under Article 370 and Constituent Assembly to frame its own Constitution and thus placed Jammu and Kashmir on a different footing from other states of India. But, the state leaders were far from being satisfied. They said in their speeches that they wanted the maximum possible autonomy for the state. Sheikh Abdullah, the Prime Minister of the state, after some time showed signs of change in his attitude towards India which was visible through his speeches. In one of the speech he said that the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was a sovereign body which was free to give shape to the destiny of the state in any manner it pleased. Sometimes he talked about the independence of the state. This changed attitude of Sheikh Abdullah and such statements raised a controversy, so much so that the central leadership decided to start a dialogue with Sheikh Abdullah and his colleagues.

The dialogue resulted into the Delhi Agreement of 1952. The Centre-State leadership agreed that the Hereditary Ruler will be replaced by the elected head of state designated as Sadar-i-Riyasat recognised by the President of India and hold office during the pleasure of the President. Further it was agreed that the provisions relating to citizenship and fundamental rights should be made applicable to the state but with certain modifications. The Indian flag was to be recognised supreme and use of state flag and an official language of its own sanctioned and all residuary powers were to vest with the state.

However, Sheikh Abdullah and his colleagues differed with the Union Government in their interpretation of the provisions of the Delhi Agreement. They felt that the agreement had put the seal on the autonomy of the state. On the other hand central leadership felt that as soon as the special circumstances ceased to exist, state would be fully integrated into the union of India, of course, with the consent of the people of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Under the provisions of Delhi Agreement hereditary rulership was abolished but no steps were taken to implement other provisions. This created a chaotic situation in the state which ultimately led to dismissal and arrest of Sheikh Abdullah on 8th August, 1953.

After the dismissal and detention of Sheikh Abdullah, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was appointed the Prime Minister of the state. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad obtained the unanimous vote of confidence from the state legislative assembly. On 15th February, 1954 the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir ratified state‟s accession to India. Further to strengthen the relations between centre and state of Jammu and Kashmir Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad had abolished on 13th April, 1954 the custom duties on goods entering the state which resulted in lowering prices of essential commodities.

Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad secured the approval of the Constituent Assembly of the state to implement the Delhi Agreement. Accordingly, in May, 1954, the provisions of the Constitution of India as envisaged by the Delhi Agreement were also made applicable to the state of Jammu and Kashmir and it was brought within the Constitutional framework of India.

The process of Constitution making was also expedited during the regime of Bakshi. The Constituent Assembly drew up a Constitution for the state by amending suitably the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act, 1939. It completed this task in 1956 and the Constitution was finally approved and adopted unanimously on 17th November, 1956. It came into effect on 26th January, 1957. The people of the state had chosen 26th January, the Republic day of India as the date for enforcement of their Constitution and this is the evidence of the emotional integration with the rest of India.

The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir declared the state of Jammu and Kashmir to be an integral part of the Union of India. The territory of the state will comprise which on 15th August, 1947, were under the sovereignty of the ruler of the state. Most of its provisions were patterned and borrowed from the Constitution of India though subject to certain exceptions and modifications depending upon the local needs and the exigencies of the state. The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is partly rigid and partly flexible. The proviso to section 147 specifies those features of the constitution which are unalterable or rigid. The state legislature is debarred from undertaking any amendment of the constitution affecting the state‟s accession to India or the extent of the executive and legislative powers of the state. Other matters like defence, external affairs and communication, in the constitution being outside the scope of the legislature, may be regarded as rigid for the purpose of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution but they are flexible in so far as the powers of the Union Parliament are concerned.

credit: some obscure author whose work was saved on my hard disk. Don't recall the name

@Stephen Cohen for your perusal




How is Article 370 an impediment? When as per J&K's own constitution it is an integral part of India, what makes the indian politicians hesitate from enacting a law to repeal the article itself and incorporate it as all other princely states had been?

That is why, we have been saying that the issue requires to be settled politically. Brute military force is not the answer in valley.

For the average Kashmiri, it is a fight for 'azadi' @Levina as our own policies have allowed an environment wherein the complete and gradual integration of the state as not taken place.

So how is @Joe Shearer wrong, as you quoted earlier? If you look at things from a Kashmiri's perspective, they have not been given a chance to integrate with the nation. A policy of 'ghetto' structure had been formulated by Nehru against all logic and advice on the basis that the violence of partition required the displaced Muslims to be placed together in order to feel 'secure'. Instead of working to improve the security for all citizens irrespective of the religious identity, he proceeded to put the Muslims in a situation wherein they got isolated and felt surrounded by a hostile Hindu population.

Have you ever had the chance to visit Islamabad at Deoband (there is an Islamabad there behind the seminary)?

There a muslim once asked me "aapki hindustani sarkar ne hamarey like kya kayak" It was a shocker for me.

You are conducting your study from an Academic stand point

It is not an academic matter where you have to prove certain theories

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kashmir from the moment the Instrument of accession was signed was a GEO political
battle between India and Pakistan

In which religion had to play a major part -- It was simply inevitable

The geographical contiguity with Pakistan meant that One day
The Kashmiris would turn their backs on India

All we did after 1953 was to pre empt this and fore close this oppurtunity

 

[Hellfire]

You are conducting your study from an Academic stand point

It is not an academic matter where you have to prove certain theories

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kashmir from the moment the Instrument of accession was signed was a GEO political
battle between India and Pakistan

In which religion had to play a major part -- It was simply inevitable

The geographical contiguity with Pakistan meant that One day
The Kashmiris would turn their backs on India

All we did after 1953 was to pre empt this and fore close this oppurtunity

Not an academic. More of an academic warrior ... been on the ground long enough.

I am posting these instances to show you that there has been a deliberate attempt to subvert the peace in Kashmir, by all concerned. The Pakistanis by proxy war and fuelling insurgency, the Kashmiri politicians - by changing their stance ever so often (historically Sheikh Abdullah was the classical case) and by Indians, by stupidity of not integrating the state till date.

And it continues.

Don't you see a pattern of deliberate subversion of peace and a propensity to continue the issue and let it simmer?

Article 370 being abolished over night is not the answer, the dilution of the same and subsequent gradual integration was the key ... we made commitments which we ourselves never kept. How do you expect anyone to trust us?

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Not an academic. More of an academic warrior ... been on the ground long enough.

I am posting these instances to show you that there has been a deliberate attempt to subvert the peace in Kashmir, by all concerned. The Pakistanis by proxy war and fuelling insurgency, the Kashmiri politicians - by changing their stance ever so often (historically Sheikh Abdullah was the classical case) and by Indians, by stupidity of not integrating the state till date.

And it continues.

Don't you see a pattern of deliberate subversion of peace and a propensity to continue the issue and let it simmer?

Article 370 being abolished over night is not the answer, the dilution of the same and subsequent gradual integration was the key ... we made commitments which we ourselves never kept. How do you expect anyone to trust us?

What Kashmirs and Pakistanis did or are doing does nt matter

What we did and WHY is the only thing that matters

This world DOES NOT live and work on Principles ; it works on POWER

India's committment to Kashmiris does Not matter

What matters is the committment we MADE to ourself when we got freedom
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are we SO stupid to just fritter away our Territory ; just like that
that too to a tiny country

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kashmiris were always going to break away
We just made it impossible for them to do so

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading your impassioned pleas makes me wonder

whether you have ANY idea ; what it means to loose territory to your enemy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We should be grateful to our Bureaucrats in Fifties Sixties and seventies
who eroded the Article 370 and of course to Nehru and Indira Gandhi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kashmiris being Muslims would always prefer Pakistan to India

The question is where do we DRAW the line
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any Government of the day is supposed to have Foresight and anticipate problems
of future

This is what Our government did precisely
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government's first and foremost duty is to protect India's TERRITORIAL integrity

The so called committments be damned
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The so called committments made in the Instrument of accession and the
Original Article 370 were FOOLISH ; IMPRACTICAL and DANGEROUS

They would have have definitely led to Kashmir's secession in due course

That is why we went back on our word

 

[Joe Shearer]

@hellfire

Since Article 370 has come up more than once, let me remind your readers of the legal position. What I am about to write is, incidentally, in flat contradiction to your citation at #71; I will go to that as soon as this is over, if my luck holds and I get access:

1. When the Maharaja acceded to India, he did so on the standard instrument of accession, a draft of which had been attached to the Government of India Act, 1935.
2. HOWEVER, HE ALSO ATTACHED HIS COVERING LETTER TO THE INSTRUMENT. Legally, this becomes part of the instrument, as Government of India recognised, both explicitly and implicitly, through its subsequent actions.
3. In the instrument itself, he defines his accession as extending only to defence, foreign affairs and communications only. Many of the other acceding states did the same. The difference is that they were individually or collectively approached by V. P. Menon, and over a period of time, they were brought to abandon their reserved accession in favour of a total one. THIS WAS NOT DONE IN JAMMU AND KASHMIR.
4. This particular format and content and scope of accession was formally acknowledged by Mountbatten, whose letter was an expression of the wishes of the state that he ruled (as Governor-General, and representative of the King, pending the composition of a Constitution by the Constituent Assembly), and not a personal letter.
5. Mountbatten found no difficulty in accepting this constrained accession, since it had been the declared intention of Government of India (then the British government of the Colony of British India) to absorb the princely states in this manner, with regard to these three subjects, defence, foreign affairs and communications, alone. They were confident that their Political Officers and Agents would keep the states in line with regard to the rest.
6. Such being the case, and with the Maharaja ordaining in early 1948 that the disposition of the rest of the subjects which he had kept reserved with himself should be decided by his own state's Constituent Assembly. the Indian Constituent Assembly, which had already started meeting, decided to build an interface to that future sovereign instrument.
7. They did this by saying that while they (the Indian Constituent Assembly) would define what subject would be in which jurisdiction for the rest of the acceding states, J&K would decide for itself for the beginning, and this right would be recognised by Article 370.
8. It was understood that Article 370 would stop being used once the J&K Constituent Assembly had distributed the powers for the first time, and this separate constitution was promulgated.
9. At this stage, the J&K Constituent Assembly did an unexpected thing, It dissolved itself, rather than adjourn sine die.NOW THERE WAS NO PATH FOR REMOVING ARTICLE 370.

I hope that the readers will try to keep a grip on the legal implications.

Jammu & Kashmir is legally Indian territory only if the Maharaja had the sovereign right to accede to whichever Dominion he chose. Therefore the root of our claim is the legitimacy of the Maharaja's sovereignty and his consequent decision. If he was the sovereign authority in that decision, then his sovereign right to accede partially must also be acknowledged; which then implies that he had a perfect right to reserve some of the subjects of administration to himself. It follows that he had a right to surrender those to whomsoever he chose. The acts of forming a Constituent Assembly, getting them to draft a Constitution and approving that amounts to his assigning the residual items to his subjects, represented by their elected Assembly.

What happens if we abolish Article 370?

We then in effect arbitrarily declare that the Maharaja's decision to assign some heads of administration to his subjects, the J&K State Assembly is not legitimate any longer. We take over the whole, and then re-distribute it as we please. What then stops one of his former subjects from asking what is left of India's claim itself? How does that remain any different from Pakistan's claims, which are rooted in military conquest? .

Sorry.
I didnt receive any notification.

On topic:
I do not support Mr. Chidambaram's idea of letting Kashmir be an autonomous state. He must have said it with a good intent, but he's forgetting the fact that albeit building autonomy could temporarily ease the tension and offer the opportunities for further negotiation, BUT it is not easy to forecast the future of autonomy. In other words, dangers could underly the face of peace.
Do you want Kashmir to be in a perpetual state of war?
Other than alienating Kashmir from rest of India we have so far not achieved anything tangible by giving (special) autonomous status to Kashmir.

This is a mockery of the real state of affairs. We alienated Kashmir from the rest of India precisely by subverting her autonomy. The provision for amending the constitution of J&K through Presidential ordinance was intended for a single, one-time use until the J&K Constituent Assembly had completed its deliberations, and the results of those deliberations would be the relevant provisions for administration thereafter. This was pointed out by the first Indian President, Rajendra Prasad, when he was asked to sign the first such ordinance in a series of wholly illegitimate ordinances.

The first part of his statement marked in red conflicts with his second statement. If every state in the country is allowed to have its free will in making laws then how long do you think India will survive?

Since no other state was in the first place allowed to make laws freely, but only to the extent allowed and permitted under the Indian Constitution, this is a lamentably weak and unfounded argument. If pigs had wings....

Too late for this confession.



Does he mean to say that other states and its people do not have any?
I know, many here would ask me to consider the situation under which Kashmir joined hands with India. But so far, the special status given to kashmir by Indian government, has been its biggest blunder.

This special status was not 'given' by the Indian Government. It was due to the action of the Maharaja in surrendering only very specific rights to the Government of India at the time of accession. When we question that action, we undermine the legitimacy of our presence in Kashmir.

Had Kashmir been like any other state in India then others would have been able to buy property in the state, they would have been able to establish their businesses and bring properity to the state. But the damn article 370 and its perils dont just end there. Kashmiris have a super citizen status in India.

A truly stupid argument.

Article 370 has nothing to do with the right of Indian citizens to buy property in the state or not. We have to listen to these whinings of the ignorant only due to the slothfulness of the rest of us not pointing out the fallacies involved.

No Indian citizen not a descendant of permanent residents of the state is allowed to buy property in Himachal Pradesh, or in Uttarakhand, or in Arunachal Pradesh. There are restrictions in three other states. Are those due to "the damn article 370" also?

For example, in many states like Maharshtra, Kashmiri students get a priority in admission when compared to other states. Why the favour?

Because it was brought in to allow Kashmiri Pandit students preferential educational privileges. I do not know how the legislation could have been drafted to say that Hindu students should have been preferred and Muslims debarred. Now that there is a Hindu-favouring government in that state, let them find the most appropriately offensive wording and amend the legislation. They might find help in drafting from among the members of this forum. One good draft, after all, deserves another.

Once again, that would be a vacuous thing to do.
Kashmir unlike other states has incessant law and order issues, J&K police is not well equipped nor well trained to handle it.

Vacuous is precisely the word.

Any professional would use it if confronted with the spectacle of someone saying that instead of training the police to do a difficult policing job, we should weaken the military and divert them from doing their proper job, for which they are trained, and re-train them to do a police job.

Nagaland, too, has incessant law and order issues. So, too, do Chhatisgarh and Jharkhand. More policemen have been killed in Chhatisgarh than in J&K. So, too, does our little ten-district state of Telengana, in Warangal and parts around. Even Assam has incessant law and order problems. Coming to which, law and order problems are endemic in UP, and in the Gadchiroli area of Maharashtra.

An excellent word for the context, 'vacuous'. Once used properly.

Easy to make such statements when not in power. PC is just trying to add fuel to the fire by advocating greater autonomy! What is the limit to this 'grand bargain' within Indian constitution? There's never going to be an end to the wish list by the separatists, & this 'grand bargain' is never going to be grand enough for them!

Plausible solution would be the one from other side of extreme! How about doing away with article 370 & provide equal opportunity to Kashmir like any other state in India? Why deprive the state from developing with the help of external resources & ideas? This will be more beneficial to ordinary Kashmiris than allowing few elites to set the rules for the rest.

Since you referred to this post of yours, let us return to it.

You might try making an effort to understand what Article 370 is, why it cannot be done away with, and why it has nothing to do with restricting development.

That will be more beneficial to ordinary Kashmiris than not knowing much about it and commenting upon it.

I think Indian Parliament can negotiate with State Assembly of Kashmir for more political autonomy. I mean, there is nothing shame in giving autonomy to Kashmir, due to their status and the way they joined their Indian Union.

1. My idea is based on Quebec Canada type agreement on Kashmir.
2. Kashmir can have its own laws and regulations without violating on India's principles on Secularism and fundamental rights enshrined in Indian constitution.
3. Kashmir must start giving green cards on the lines of Quebec to those who invest and those who marry Kashmiris.

It can be improved.

A very interesting observation. Very apt.

Off-topic, you might like to read Yasser Latif Hamdani on his thesis that Jinnah sought some kind of 'consociational' arrangement. 'Consociationalism' is the term used for the Canadian arrangement with Quebec.

Very interesting that you should bring this up.

So in short the message is enslave Kashmiris and slaugjter all who you dont like

I deplore your post, considering the enormous effort spent by other members to explore the Kashmir issue threadbare. This was totally uncalled for, and represents nothing but a deliberate attempt at provocation.

Utterly disgraceful.

I much admire him. But could you tell what his position was w.r.t Kashmir if he stated it? Or by position changing you just mean issues in general and not just Kashmir.

I'll wait till you are back in working order, no rush! Its always interesting and insightful to read what you have to say.

I meant issues in general, but you raised an interesting point. First, about Bacha Khan off-topic.

Tariq Ali reports this: it is 'his' profanity (sic), not mine.

When Bacha Khan, Sheikh Abdullah went to Srinagar soon after independence, the 'bakra' faction wanted to demonstrate but were not allowed to. They lined the Jhelum canal in their pherans, which, in summer, was worn like a Scotsman's kilt, with no other garment beneath. As the boat carrying the leadership passed, the men raised their pherans, the women turned around and raised theirs.

Bacha Khan roared with laughter, Nehru was enfuriated, Abdullah was embarrassed. Nehru was asked later that evening about his impressions of his recent tours, and he replied,"The Punjabis are loud, the Bengalis are hysterical and the Kashmiris are simply vulgar." Bacha Khan came back to the topic in a subsequent speech on the topic on the same visit, but for all those details, you have to read Tariq Ali, " The Bitter Chill of Winter". Like all his writings, it is a cracking good read. URL available on demand.

On-topic: Bacha Khan consistently backed a secular arrangement, having been himself cruelly betrayed by the Congress in NWFP. He was firmly on the principle of Kashmir in India, but there are signs that the mindless, moronic operation of the Indian bureaucracy was beginning to irritate him more and more as the days went on.

The message for your side is quite simple:

]

I am deliberately going slow in order to take every point step by step and discuss it so that a clarity is maintained. We have a tendency to mix too many things at the same time and get confused. Please bear with me.

I have given the post at #55 in order to give you the sense of the political scenario at the time immediately preceding the formation of the two dominions. That these were influential groups which each made the statement showed a complete dichotomy which was existing in the princess state. Pertinent to note is the history of the National Conference which was formed as a Muslim Interest group opposing the Dogra rule and which changed its stance to be inclusive and 'secular' whence it realised the the British intervention had changed the tide against it in the state (the same astute political sense dictated its policies vis-a-vis India post signing of the Instrument of Accession.

The take-over of the State Government by the British in the wake of the Muslim agitation ultimately brought the Muslims to a dead end. In due course of time they found the British were now the virtual masters in the State. The support, the Muslims had received from the Muslims in Punjab also waned mainly because of the British patronage as the British consolidated their hold over the erstwhile Sikh Empire. The British inspiration and patronage to the Muslims in Punjab to rise against the Dogras had also ceased. The Muslim leadership did not take long to realize that the Dogras were an adjunct of the British empire in India and any struggle against them was inconceivable except within the context of freedom from British dominance. The elections and the formation of the Congress Ministries in the British Indian Provinces in 1937, inspired the Muslim leadership to break out of its religious moorings and with the active support of the Hindus and Sikhs, who, had opposed the Muslim agitation vehemently, founded a broad based and secular movement for political emancipation of the people of the State. In 1939, the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference was converted into a secular political party. The Muslim leaders amended the Constitution of the Muslim Conference, renamed it as the All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, modified its objectives and threw its membership open to all the people of the State.

The National Conference committed itself to a secular struggle for Indian freedom, the realization of a political India comprising the British Indian Provinces and the Indian States and institution of self-rule in the States. The Conference affiliated itself to the All India States' Peoples’ Conferences, which spearheaded the liberation struggle in the Indian States. The National Conference conducted a vigorous campaign in the State for the institution of self-government and constitutional reforms. However, it was plunged into a crisis when the Muslim League adopted the Pakistan resolution in March 1940. The League resolution envisaged the reorganization of the Muslim majority provinces in India into a separate and an independent Muslim State of Pakistan. A large section of Conference leaders and ranks, mostly from Jammu, advocated the acceptance of the League resolution for Pakistan on the plea that the Muslims in the State formed a part of the Muslim India and, therefore, their aspirations wore bound with the creation of Pakistan. The Conference rejected the League resolution and the leaders and cadres who advocated the acceptance of Pakistan resolution abandoned the Conference.

On 13 June 1941, the breakaway factions of the National Conference revived the erstwhile Muslims Conference. Chowdhry Ghulam Abbas was elected the President of the Conference. In the open session of the Conference, Abbas called upon the Muslims in the State to support the League demand for Pakistan, a situation which was met with significant public support.

From above stated lines, I am trying to impress upon you the situation that existed on ground and that which India was to face subsequently. You have raised Article 370, a point I shall delve into subsequent to the cover of the political and military scenario covering a period till 1950.

But as a pointer, are you aware that the difference on the status of J&K was only brought to fore in 1951 and after the incorporation of the Constitution of India in 1950? That all the provisions which you have slammed were extended to all the princely states while categorising them as Category A to C in the period immediately following the independence without exception initially in order to facilitate the same model that the British had, to extend over the new nation of India? That there was a gradual absorption of these princely states under the managed federalism which refused to give credence to sub nationalities as being professed at the time?

If so was the case, who was stupid to grant a special status to J&K violating the original Instrument of Accession Act of 1947 and Article 1 of the Constitution of India when there were no pre-conditions being raised by the people of Kashmir in the first place?

@Zibago suggest can the nationalistic troll oriented rhetoric here and post something sensible, if we wanted another stupid India Pakistan troll fest would not be posted in senior cafe. As a Pakistani who dithered from responsibility of helping the Kashmiris (and you were in a position to do so post UN resolution by suo-moto and unilateral withdrawal of forces from Kashmir thus forcing India to act on its promises and undertakings to the UN of holding a plebiscite/referendum and then take subsequent actions keeping in view the general wishes of the Kashmir valley) in 1947 itself, you have absolutely no moral standing to post the nonsense you have posted as your actions or inactions in 1947 have equally contributed to the mess Kashmir is in today.

Please don't derail the thread.

@Joe Shearer Sir I am putting only bare minimum ... waiting for you beef up when you get time. Will be a long haul and am trying to cover with periods so that overall gross stupidities at political level can be brought out irrespective of the nationalities concerned.

@hellfire

You are actually doing a better job than I could do, for the simple reason that you do not alienate members by using harsh and acrimonious language: I do. Your assemblage of points and arguments is stunning; I'd better start reading again. Unfortunately, this happens to be on the lip of sixty days of serious challenge, when I have to take on a challenge of the sort that I have longed for throughout my professional life, but which has come to me in the sere of my life.

So far it's been a thrilling read.

Mogambo khush hua.

 

[Nilgiri]

A very interesting observation. Very apt.

Off-topic, you might like to read Yasser Latif Hamdani on his thesis that Jinnah sought some kind of 'consociational' arrangement. 'Consociationalism' is the term used for the Canadian arrangement with Quebec.

Very interesting that you should bring this up.

There are many thousands of ideas all around the world that can be applied in Kashmir context.

There has to be more trust between Kashmiris and rest of India, otherwise everything gets stuck in blanket article 370 type banter and people simply do not get how Kashmir actually joined India in the first place.

I was wondering if any such offer was made by Patel/Nehru etc. to the Nizam of Hyderabad before operation polo? i.e one of special autonomous status without need for what eventually happened?