Kashmir the mental block
In a recent address to people gathered at Uri from different parts of the "state" the President Shri.A.P.J.Abdul Kalam has said:
[ Emphasise in the quote is by yours truly ].
Right from the formative days of the modern nation state, India has been in a state of mental block from beliveing and demonstrating the legally acceded status of J&K as a part of the nation. In one way or other, from ordinary citizen to highest post holders, this confused state of mind is evident and explicit. Now that our first citizen himself has used the term that supports this "confusion" claim.
It is very hard to imagine the president or prime minister who visits, say, TamilNadu, to express solidarity towards the torrential rain affected people, saying "people of india are concerned about your welfare". What we would have heard is something like "the entire nation is concerned about your welfare". We have seen such clear-cut statements during the tsunami visits, during the Gujarat after-quake visits, and during Orissa after-flood visits by our dignitaries, in the recent past. But when it comes to the state of Jammu & Kashmir we bungle. By the way, if we have to refer it properly it is Laddak, Jammu & Kashmir. Don't we really believe in J&K being our state? If we don't why should we unnecessarily pay for keeping it with ourselves? If we do then why this mental block, why is this "India & Kashmir" psyche?
Let us rewind to what happened in during the formative days. When it was decided that the British would finally transfer the power of rule from the British crown to the locals (in other words, quit the country) the Cabinet Mission of British (in the British term it Cabinet Mission of His Majesty Government) created two dominions carving out of the then British India. The erstwhile British India comprised of regions that were under direct control of British crown and princely states that were not under direct british control but were owing their allegiance to the paramountcy or supremacy of the British crown.
The British withdrawal was accompanied by the partition of India and the creation of a separate Muslim state of Pakistan, constituted of the Muslim majority provinces of Sind, North-western Frontier province, Baluchistan, the Muslim majority districts of the Punjab and Bengal and the Muslim majority division of Sylhat in the then Assam (This Bengal and Sylhat Muslim majority region, which was called as East Pakistan after partition, has now become an independent country called Bangladesh). So formation of one nation, Pakistan, was clear. However the "Indian states", that is the rest after pakistan formation, were not completely subject to partition of India. What does it mean? It means, those region of "Indian states" that were directly ruled by the British will be part of the Indian dominion but the princely states which owed their allegiance to the British until then, were left to themselves to decide (as to whether join either of the dominion or want to remain independent). The cabinet mission did neither recognise those princely states as dependent on either of the dominion, nor did it recognise them as independent state (i.e. nation state). Such was the mess during the partition. The states comprised of pakistan was not in such a mess as none of those states were princely states.
Neither the Muslim League that was considered by the British as authority for Pakistan, nor the Congress that was considered by the British as authority for dominion of India, accepted that those princely states were not subject to partition. The league and congress, however, interpreted the partition scheme totally different. The muslim league considered those princely states as Independent dominion (just like pakistan), the congress emphasized that the people of those princely states alone could determine the future disposition of the States in respect of their accession to either of the dominion. The congress, demonstrated its resolution (people's choice) in the case of Hyderabad wherein everyone except the ruler, that is the nizam (and nizam alone) wanted to be part of Indian dominion. Finally, the Nizam was made to sign the accession treaty with Indian dominion, thanks to strong stand taken by Congress in general and Patel in particular. The Prince of kashmir was still undecided, though, believe it or not the favourite wave amongst the local people of J&K was in favour of Dominion of India. Popular leader Sheikh Abdullah was growing amongst people with his pro-india stand. His raise was one reason which made the Kashmir prince to be undecided, for the prince was also tilted towards India but a democractic India was worrying him as he will not have his powers if he accedes his state to Indian dominion. On the other hand, due to political inclinations and other considerations the Congress was also not pressing the Kashmir prince to take the decision soon. Taking advantage of this volatile situation armed "tribes men" from Pakistan including Pakistani army personnel in civilian clothes captured about one-third of Kashmir which is now called as POK or Azad kashmir. Prince of kashmir, then sought for Indian help and India had to say that unless indeterminate situation of the J&K is resolved India cannot help Kashmir. So the prince of Kashmir signed a treaty for legal accession of the region of J&K which was lawfully under his adminstration (including the POK captured by Pak then), to India.
After that general elections were held and the then popular leader sheikh abdullah was elected as wazir-e-azam, prime minister, of state of J&K. During the period before 1953 india gave separate status (popularly known as Article 370 of Indian constitution) to J&K because partial region of the state was still under pakistan's occupation. Indian army could have re-captured it but due to then political resolution the status quo was maintained because the matter was referred to the UN general assembly and the UN had decided to favoured a plebisite in UNDIVIDED J&K region. This stand of UN, even though a thorn in flesh for India, is fully in line to Congress' stand at the time of partition, that is, the people of princely state should determine their accession status to either of the dominion. Article 370 of Indian constitution guarenteed separate status to J&K to maintain the pre-53 status of citizenship of kashmir so that, should a condusive environment occur for the plebisite a fair deal is given to the people of the state at that time to determine with which dominion they wish to join.
Meanwhile the elected government of state of Jammu & Kashmir, under sheikh abdullah's leadership formulated the "Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir". As per one of its article (if yours truly's memory serves correctly it is article 2A) the state of J&K (including the region of ladakh, POK) is integral part (state) of Union of India. Another article (Article 2B?) guarenteed that there cannot be any alteration to the above mentioned fundamental article of the accession status. This another article (2B?) includes itself in no-change-privilege, and in the process making the acession irreversible under the constitution of J&K. Together these two articles constitutionally and legally acceeds the undivided state of J&K (shown in official maps of India) to Union of India.
The understanding of this basic constitutionality of the state rubbishes two claims:
1) Farooq and Omar Abdullah's now-and-then threatening claim to "restoration to pre-53" status. Should such an attempt is made, it is totally unconstitutional as per the constitutions of both Union of India as well as state of J&K. The supreme court of India will quash any such move, so will the High court of J&K, at the first place.
2) Pakistan's claim that J&K should have been given to it as per partition because of muslim majority. This Pakistan's claim is totally wrong because J&K was, just like Hyderabad (of India), was not under the partition's purview because it was a princely state and the mission left to its decision. It is clearly stated by the Cabinet mission for partition (or transfer of power).
Now, coming back to our psyche, the political class, right from the first government under Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru to till now, have created more and more mess out of the state's status and worse is that, they have sowed a deep confusion and suspicion in the minds of people about the accession of the state to the Union.
This is the very reason why the terorrism in the state could not be curbed so easily, just like it was uprooted in Punjab with the help of the state people, state government, rest-of-india people and government and union government.
We don't know when our country will come out of this mental block; when the people of J&K and rest of the India believe in the state being part and parcel of India. Until then, in yours truly's belief the commotion (be it terrorism and/or opportunism) around this state will never end.
Let us hope good sense prevail upon all of us, otherwise we would see only in history books that there lived a group called "Kashmiri pundits".
"I know you faced a lot of problems but you have withstood this biggest challenge," he told a gathering in the lawns of the Army's highly-guarded Brigade headquarters. "God is with you and the people of India are concerned about your welfare."Source:Kalam lauds J&K quake survivors from The-Hindu.
[ Emphasise in the quote is by yours truly ].
Right from the formative days of the modern nation state, India has been in a state of mental block from beliveing and demonstrating the legally acceded status of J&K as a part of the nation. In one way or other, from ordinary citizen to highest post holders, this confused state of mind is evident and explicit. Now that our first citizen himself has used the term that supports this "confusion" claim.
It is very hard to imagine the president or prime minister who visits, say, TamilNadu, to express solidarity towards the torrential rain affected people, saying "people of india are concerned about your welfare". What we would have heard is something like "the entire nation is concerned about your welfare". We have seen such clear-cut statements during the tsunami visits, during the Gujarat after-quake visits, and during Orissa after-flood visits by our dignitaries, in the recent past. But when it comes to the state of Jammu & Kashmir we bungle. By the way, if we have to refer it properly it is Laddak, Jammu & Kashmir. Don't we really believe in J&K being our state? If we don't why should we unnecessarily pay for keeping it with ourselves? If we do then why this mental block, why is this "India & Kashmir" psyche?
Let us rewind to what happened in during the formative days. When it was decided that the British would finally transfer the power of rule from the British crown to the locals (in other words, quit the country) the Cabinet Mission of British (in the British term it Cabinet Mission of His Majesty Government) created two dominions carving out of the then British India. The erstwhile British India comprised of regions that were under direct control of British crown and princely states that were not under direct british control but were owing their allegiance to the paramountcy or supremacy of the British crown.
The British withdrawal was accompanied by the partition of India and the creation of a separate Muslim state of Pakistan, constituted of the Muslim majority provinces of Sind, North-western Frontier province, Baluchistan, the Muslim majority districts of the Punjab and Bengal and the Muslim majority division of Sylhat in the then Assam (This Bengal and Sylhat Muslim majority region, which was called as East Pakistan after partition, has now become an independent country called Bangladesh). So formation of one nation, Pakistan, was clear. However the "Indian states", that is the rest after pakistan formation, were not completely subject to partition of India. What does it mean? It means, those region of "Indian states" that were directly ruled by the British will be part of the Indian dominion but the princely states which owed their allegiance to the British until then, were left to themselves to decide (as to whether join either of the dominion or want to remain independent). The cabinet mission did neither recognise those princely states as dependent on either of the dominion, nor did it recognise them as independent state (i.e. nation state). Such was the mess during the partition. The states comprised of pakistan was not in such a mess as none of those states were princely states.
Neither the Muslim League that was considered by the British as authority for Pakistan, nor the Congress that was considered by the British as authority for dominion of India, accepted that those princely states were not subject to partition. The league and congress, however, interpreted the partition scheme totally different. The muslim league considered those princely states as Independent dominion (just like pakistan), the congress emphasized that the people of those princely states alone could determine the future disposition of the States in respect of their accession to either of the dominion. The congress, demonstrated its resolution (people's choice) in the case of Hyderabad wherein everyone except the ruler, that is the nizam (and nizam alone) wanted to be part of Indian dominion. Finally, the Nizam was made to sign the accession treaty with Indian dominion, thanks to strong stand taken by Congress in general and Patel in particular. The Prince of kashmir was still undecided, though, believe it or not the favourite wave amongst the local people of J&K was in favour of Dominion of India. Popular leader Sheikh Abdullah was growing amongst people with his pro-india stand. His raise was one reason which made the Kashmir prince to be undecided, for the prince was also tilted towards India but a democractic India was worrying him as he will not have his powers if he accedes his state to Indian dominion. On the other hand, due to political inclinations and other considerations the Congress was also not pressing the Kashmir prince to take the decision soon. Taking advantage of this volatile situation armed "tribes men" from Pakistan including Pakistani army personnel in civilian clothes captured about one-third of Kashmir which is now called as POK or Azad kashmir. Prince of kashmir, then sought for Indian help and India had to say that unless indeterminate situation of the J&K is resolved India cannot help Kashmir. So the prince of Kashmir signed a treaty for legal accession of the region of J&K which was lawfully under his adminstration (including the POK captured by Pak then), to India.
After that general elections were held and the then popular leader sheikh abdullah was elected as wazir-e-azam, prime minister, of state of J&K. During the period before 1953 india gave separate status (popularly known as Article 370 of Indian constitution) to J&K because partial region of the state was still under pakistan's occupation. Indian army could have re-captured it but due to then political resolution the status quo was maintained because the matter was referred to the UN general assembly and the UN had decided to favoured a plebisite in UNDIVIDED J&K region. This stand of UN, even though a thorn in flesh for India, is fully in line to Congress' stand at the time of partition, that is, the people of princely state should determine their accession status to either of the dominion. Article 370 of Indian constitution guarenteed separate status to J&K to maintain the pre-53 status of citizenship of kashmir so that, should a condusive environment occur for the plebisite a fair deal is given to the people of the state at that time to determine with which dominion they wish to join.
Meanwhile the elected government of state of Jammu & Kashmir, under sheikh abdullah's leadership formulated the "Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir". As per one of its article (if yours truly's memory serves correctly it is article 2A) the state of J&K (including the region of ladakh, POK) is integral part (state) of Union of India. Another article (Article 2B?) guarenteed that there cannot be any alteration to the above mentioned fundamental article of the accession status. This another article (2B?) includes itself in no-change-privilege, and in the process making the acession irreversible under the constitution of J&K. Together these two articles constitutionally and legally acceeds the undivided state of J&K (shown in official maps of India) to Union of India.
The understanding of this basic constitutionality of the state rubbishes two claims:
1) Farooq and Omar Abdullah's now-and-then threatening claim to "restoration to pre-53" status. Should such an attempt is made, it is totally unconstitutional as per the constitutions of both Union of India as well as state of J&K. The supreme court of India will quash any such move, so will the High court of J&K, at the first place.
2) Pakistan's claim that J&K should have been given to it as per partition because of muslim majority. This Pakistan's claim is totally wrong because J&K was, just like Hyderabad (of India), was not under the partition's purview because it was a princely state and the mission left to its decision. It is clearly stated by the Cabinet mission for partition (or transfer of power).
Now, coming back to our psyche, the political class, right from the first government under Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru to till now, have created more and more mess out of the state's status and worse is that, they have sowed a deep confusion and suspicion in the minds of people about the accession of the state to the Union.
This is the very reason why the terorrism in the state could not be curbed so easily, just like it was uprooted in Punjab with the help of the state people, state government, rest-of-india people and government and union government.
We don't know when our country will come out of this mental block; when the people of J&K and rest of the India believe in the state being part and parcel of India. Until then, in yours truly's belief the commotion (be it terrorism and/or opportunism) around this state will never end.
Let us hope good sense prevail upon all of us, otherwise we would see only in history books that there lived a group called "Kashmiri pundits".
posted by Kupps at 4:22 AM
4 Comments:
NV
thanks for stopping by and giving valueable comments.
i agree with your suggestion that i should have stopped at posting the observations alone. though it is hard for me, still i'll try to be so in future :)
to answer your points:
1) i have no idea whether there is any documented evidence. but people's overwhelming support in the first election by choosing sheikh abdullah who explicitly campaigned with pro-india stand can be taken.
2) I didn't intent to say that Art. 370 was introduced because part of J&K was under Pak occupation but when i read it after seeing your comment it is very explicit that the post says so. Yes as you have rightly said that provision was the agreement between Union of India and Prince of J&K and it was articulated in the constitution. Thanks for pointing out the mistake.
3) Agree with you. In the blog intention of painting a legality/constitutionality angle more was because the trigger point was Kalam the president's speech, thats all.
4. The comparison was more from the angle of eliminating the terorrism from the state. I agree with you the reason and logistics angle which is very different and unique to both states.
hmm..interesting point about POK support factor. the then friends shiekh abdullah and jawaharlal nehru soon became foes; later shiekh abdullah was arrested and was quarantined in kodaikkanal. politics played a major role than rational in J&K affairs.
Kuppa..Not just nitpicking. But there WERE some princely states in what became Pakistan too (Bahawalpur for instance, the ruler of which decided to join Pakistan on his volition) So it is not a clear cut case. Then there was the "agencies"
NWFA the leader of which wanted to join India ! The moral dilemma of Nehrus and Patels was that there was not a clear cut argument. Junagadh/Hyderabad on the one side (in favour of India) and indeterminate Kashmir on the other side. Of course the document of accession of Maharaja Hari Singh is in our possession and we can win the case in "court" any day. But there is a saying that possession is 9/10ths of the law. I agree with NV that it is not much more fundamental (even more than NV would concede).
Any "solution" would require a radical change in the semantics of what we and Kashmiris mean by terms like soverignity, freedom, peace and stability.
cheeni,
thanks for pointing out the factual errors.
Read your blog. It was an interesting reading that I had. Thanks for putting together this blog. I learnt a lot.
Post a Comment
<< Home