Are only Kashmiri leaders in favour of Article 370, if not why? :A Seminar & not Debate is needed
Daya Sagar Sharma
June 23, 2009
A Look Through the Mist
Many people have said and written on the controversies regarding Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Discussions have been more like a debate, for and against. Surely the controversies have done enough of damage even to the socio- communal fabric of J&K. The situation is so bad this day that even national level Indian political parties want to ride on the chariot of "Article 370 Controversies." There appears to be no end to the race. The "players" do not want the race to end, rather they are more interested in the ´tournament´ fee they get in the shape of confused and divided subjects of J&K. But aimless discussions have to be ended now since many even in India have started thinking that defending this article is defending Muslim cause and abrogation of this article is anti Muslim. A seminar on the need for abrogation of Article 370 was organized by Bhartiya Janta Yuva Morcha on 13-6-92 at Jammu in Gulab Bhawan. Then BJP National Vice president Mr. Sikander Bakht also participated. All speakers advocated for the abrogation (may be other group had not been invited) . Mr. Sikander Bakht too raised a point of order at that time. Appreciating the pains taken by the speakers in justifying the calls for abrogation he remarked that inspite of the scientific "reasoning / logics" given by those who are for abrogation, their reasoning and efforts have all along these years failed to convince and carry along the masses since as per his assessment it is not only the Kashmiri Muslims who have been made to think that such demands are anti Muslim, the people in other Indian states too think that demand for abrogation of Article 370 is anti Muslim. Where as those who occasionally rise only to oppose those who advocate abrogation have so far succeeded.So the issue is serious since the article concerns only a special treatment to the affairs J&K state and not any other part of India. A good number of people from J&K as well advocate its abrogation and a few ( may be microscopic numbers) from out side J&K do advocate its retention , even some ask publically for extending such provision to more states ( though such number may be microscopic). Mr. L.K. Advani had said on 5-10-97 at Calcutta (44th death anniversary of Dr. Shyama Prashad Mukherji) that "Shyama Prashad Mukherji was epitome of national unity and he died in prison strongly advocating scrapping of the government´s dual policy to-wards Kashmir", further adding that BJP would launch a mass agitation for repeal of Article-370 of constitution of India . Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee had talked on 21-12-97 of a national debate on Article370 while speaking at the 3 day National Executive Meet of BJP at Bhuvneshwar and repeal of this article was retained in the 1998 election manifesto of BJP. And Dr. Farooq while addressing an election rally at Marh (Jammu) on 13-2-98 said that article 370 can not be scrapped even if all MPs in parliament belong to one party and claimed that Atal Behari Vajpayee has privately admitted that this article can not be scrapped.
Prime Kashmiri leadership has all along said and advised that any move to abrogate article 370 of Indian Constitution will lead to total division of India and there will be a revolt. And PTI had reported on 11-2-97 that as per a press release of a private network Dr. Farooq Abdullah had cautioned against such moves and had gone to the extent of saying that he would lead the revolt. And Mr. Kedar Nath Sawhney said on 13-2-1998 while at Jammu that if the J&K Chief Minister claims that a revolt may occur in the country with the abrogation of this Article (370) and the country will not be able to control it then he will be the biggest fool, and advocated its abrogation if BJP came to power.
And the war of words is still on. Many challenges and claims as above could be listed from 1997 through to date, but with no different. BJP could not do so and India has celebrated many republic days there after with Article 370 still in place.
Why keep this issue a feeding ground for the politicians? Let all the Indians know well about this bane (I will not call it a bone, as some call it) of contention. So ,Should not now we force the parties to change the debate into a seminar? Has the debate paid any dividend so far?
Three Schools of Thought: We could broadly see from three schools of thought those who participate in discussions on Abrogation of article 370.Category (1) are those who advocate it´s abrogation pleading that since J&K is an integral part of India, it is an Indian State, it has to be constitutionally like all other Indian states. They argue that Constitution of J&K ,a Separate State Flag and emblem have provided enough of reasoning support to those who advocate against J&K remaining a State of Bharat. To them the local merits and demerits do not matter. Category (2) are those who advocate for the abrogation because they believe that this article has so far been misused by those who have remained at the helm of J&K affairs to benefit their own self and their kins both politically and materially by using it as a tool to blackmail/ exploit Government of India as well the local sentiments of innocent people of Kashmir region in the name of Kashmiriat and some thing like special status. And now the sentimental exploitation on religious lines is being attempted by the Kashmir Valley leaders in Jammu Region as well so the game plans have to be defeated in the interest of common man of all the regions of J&K. Category (3) are those who plead that it´s retention is in the interest of the people of J&K as a whole. They further advocate it to be out of the requirements of the circumstances under which the 1947 accession of J&K occurred with Bharat ( may be behind the scene, since there is no special technical link available with accession) and have named it as the "must bridge" with India. Majority has been from Kashmir Valley; even those who have all along held the reins of power. Those from category(1) and (2) have been over the years regularly making notes and writing on the subject but those from category (3) have mostly spoken when some one has talked of abrogation. But category ( 3 ) has been able to carry along with it most of the political parties of India except BJP and Shiv Sena. It has to be kept in view that while those who talk of abrogation & write for abrogation have not been able gather mass public support from the people of other Indian states.
In a seminar egos don´t clash: It was on January 31st 1992 that I first called for a National Seminar (not a debate ) on Article # 370# through a column in Daily Excelsior ( Article 370- Need for National seminar) categorically stating that the need is for a seminar since in a debate there is very less ( rather remote) scope left in the wills of the participants for agreeing to the view point of other side where as in a seminar there is no question of defeat or victory in appreciating other side if convinced. I did mention some reference points for discussion. But unfortunately all along these years isolated views have been expressed. May be those who talked had more of political motives only. The call for seminar has been given even in 2006 by me but unfortunately there appeared very less seriousness. Ofcourse some references to Accession of J&K with Dominion of Bharat too are often made in discussions. Need is more severe since after 1989 Kashmir affairs are more discussed ( in this or that context) on foreign lands even by those who do not fall in separatist class. Points of reference for the seminar could be:
Why did Maharaja Hari Singh not accede to Union of India on or before 14th August 1947? Did he have any logic / reservation in view of Indian Independence Act and partition of British India? (2 ).Was there any commitment with Maharaja Hari Singh of the type of the contents of Article 370 of Indian Constitution that could form one of the preconditions for Hari Singh agreeing for accession with India? (3) Did Hari Singh decide for rethinking at the eleventh hour? Was he under the influence of some local advisors ( may be from Jammu Province) on the subject? ( 4 ) Was the text of instrument of accession for J&K different than that was for other acceding princely states?. ( 5 ).What did Sheikh Abdullah want before 14-8-1947 & did he on record before that any time advocate Independent Kashmir or J&K? (6) Was there any other political group in J&K in August1947 enjoying more support or reasonable support in comparison to National Conference if not in whole of J&K atleast in Jammu Province?.( 7 ) What did the then leadership from Jammu province want (that too comprised of large Muslim population )? What did the leadership of Kashmir region & that of Ladakh look at? Did any opinion of people restrict Hari Singh?. (8) Was J&K part of any country other than Bharat in the past? Was so the case with only Kashmir Valley if not J&K as a whole? (9).Do we really need a ´bridge´ between India and J&K?.(10) Why did Indian National Congress not work actively as a political party in J&K in late thirties and forties?. (11).Why did Lord Mountbatten , the then Governor General of India while accepting the Instrument of accession on 27th October 1947 on behalf of Government of India cover the Instrument of Accession with a letter saying that " It is my Government´s wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and it´s soil cleared of invaders, the question of State´s accession should be settled by a reference to the people" even when Maharaja Hari Singh in his letter dated 26th October 1947 had said, " I have to inform your Excellency that a grave situation has arisen in my State and request the immediate assistance of your Government……The people of my State, both Muslims and non Muslims, generally have taken no part at all".. and the like ?. (12) Had Pundit Nehru made any commitment to Sheikh Abdullah or any other person that lead to so much of delay in drafting of Article 370 and it´s incorporation in the Constitution in it´s present form?.(13) Why did the Government of India not manage abrogation of "temporary" Art 370 even upto 1975?.(14). How did Pandit Nehru look at the need for incorporation of Article 370? (15) Why has Delhi agreement remained a nearly concealed document till this day? What is the limitation in making its certified script public? Is it still relevant? (16) Can J&K be constitutionally like other Indian States? If not , then why? (17) Are the contents of this article drawn out carefully? If not what are the lacunae? (18) Has Article 370 outlived it´s utility or it is still needed? (19) Should this article be modified or there is no alternative than to abrogate it? How could it be abrogated without giving a chance to a politician to exploit a Muslim or a Kashmiri Muslim against other Indians?.(20) Do we need to rewrite / recast the Constitution of J&K to make J&K look more like any other Indian State? (21) Will the parliament of India for ever remain helplessly looking towards Legislature of J&K?. (22) Are the people of J&K not ´azaad´ (independent) yet? If yes, then why was not the then Prime Minister of India Mr. Narasimha Rao questioned for offering some thing short of Azaadi to people of J&K?.(23) .What difference will it make to the people of India in case J&K is given autonomy or some thing like Autonomy Resolution that Farooq Abdullah´s National Conference ( Greater Autonomy) got passed by J&K Legislature in 2000? . (24) Common people in other Indian States have not agitated against J&K having her own Constitution and Flag for last five decades, then why make so much of prestige in issues like the resolution as passed by J&K assembly on Autonomy? Only BJP has raised some questions, but we have many other political parties in India .(25 ) How well are the people of other Indian states informed about J&K? How far they are concerned?.(26).In case J&K has to have her own Constitution and her own Flag then what is the harm in limiting the accession only to the subjects as were mentioned in the instrument of accession as accepted by Lord Mountbatten on 27 October 1947? (27) .What is the simple definition of National Conference´s Greater Autonomy? (28) .What is the harm in "greater autonomy"? or what benefit it has for the people of J&K? (29) With J&K having her own constitution and two flags fluttering on equal masts can the world still so simply acknowledge J&K as India? (30). Section (3) of J&K State Constitution states that J&K is and shall remain an integral part of Union of India. Will this section weaken in case article 370 is repealed? If not, then why do some say that abrogation of this Article shall de link J&K from India ? ( 31) Are only Kashmiri leaders more in favour of this Article, if so why?
(*Daya Sagar is social activist and leading scribe on Kashmir affairs dayasagr@yahoo.co.uk)
Many people have said and written on the controversies regarding Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. Discussions have been more like a debate, for and against. Surely the controversies have done enough of damage even to the socio- communal fabric of J&K. The situation is so bad this day that even national level Indian political parties want to ride on the chariot of "Article 370 Controversies." There appears to be no end to the race. The "players" do not want the race to end, rather they are more interested in the ´tournament´ fee they get in the shape of confused and divided subjects of J&K. But aimless discussions have to be ended now since many even in India have started thinking that defending this article is defending Muslim cause and abrogation of this article is anti Muslim. A seminar on the need for abrogation of Article 370 was organized by Bhartiya Janta Yuva Morcha on 13-6-92 at Jammu in Gulab Bhawan. Then BJP National Vice president Mr. Sikander Bakht also participated. All speakers advocated for the abrogation (may be other group had not been invited) . Mr. Sikander Bakht too raised a point of order at that time. Appreciating the pains taken by the speakers in justifying the calls for abrogation he remarked that inspite of the scientific "reasoning / logics" given by those who are for abrogation, their reasoning and efforts have all along these years failed to convince and carry along the masses since as per his assessment it is not only the Kashmiri Muslims who have been made to think that such demands are anti Muslim, the people in other Indian states too think that demand for abrogation of Article 370 is anti Muslim. Where as those who occasionally rise only to oppose those who advocate abrogation have so far succeeded.So the issue is serious since the article concerns only a special treatment to the affairs J&K state and not any other part of India. A good number of people from J&K as well advocate its abrogation and a few ( may be microscopic numbers) from out side J&K do advocate its retention , even some ask publically for extending such provision to more states ( though such number may be microscopic). Mr. L.K. Advani had said on 5-10-97 at Calcutta (44th death anniversary of Dr. Shyama Prashad Mukherji) that "Shyama Prashad Mukherji was epitome of national unity and he died in prison strongly advocating scrapping of the government´s dual policy to-wards Kashmir", further adding that BJP would launch a mass agitation for repeal of Article-370 of constitution of India . Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee had talked on 21-12-97 of a national debate on Article370 while speaking at the 3 day National Executive Meet of BJP at Bhuvneshwar and repeal of this article was retained in the 1998 election manifesto of BJP. And Dr. Farooq while addressing an election rally at Marh (Jammu) on 13-2-98 said that article 370 can not be scrapped even if all MPs in parliament belong to one party and claimed that Atal Behari Vajpayee has privately admitted that this article can not be scrapped.
Prime Kashmiri leadership has all along said and advised that any move to abrogate article 370 of Indian Constitution will lead to total division of India and there will be a revolt. And PTI had reported on 11-2-97 that as per a press release of a private network Dr. Farooq Abdullah had cautioned against such moves and had gone to the extent of saying that he would lead the revolt. And Mr. Kedar Nath Sawhney said on 13-2-1998 while at Jammu that if the J&K Chief Minister claims that a revolt may occur in the country with the abrogation of this Article (370) and the country will not be able to control it then he will be the biggest fool, and advocated its abrogation if BJP came to power.
And the war of words is still on. Many challenges and claims as above could be listed from 1997 through to date, but with no different. BJP could not do so and India has celebrated many republic days there after with Article 370 still in place.
Why keep this issue a feeding ground for the politicians? Let all the Indians know well about this bane (I will not call it a bone, as some call it) of contention. So ,Should not now we force the parties to change the debate into a seminar? Has the debate paid any dividend so far?
Three Schools of Thought: We could broadly see from three schools of thought those who participate in discussions on Abrogation of article 370.Category (1) are those who advocate it´s abrogation pleading that since J&K is an integral part of India, it is an Indian State, it has to be constitutionally like all other Indian states. They argue that Constitution of J&K ,a Separate State Flag and emblem have provided enough of reasoning support to those who advocate against J&K remaining a State of Bharat. To them the local merits and demerits do not matter. Category (2) are those who advocate for the abrogation because they believe that this article has so far been misused by those who have remained at the helm of J&K affairs to benefit their own self and their kins both politically and materially by using it as a tool to blackmail/ exploit Government of India as well the local sentiments of innocent people of Kashmir region in the name of Kashmiriat and some thing like special status. And now the sentimental exploitation on religious lines is being attempted by the Kashmir Valley leaders in Jammu Region as well so the game plans have to be defeated in the interest of common man of all the regions of J&K. Category (3) are those who plead that it´s retention is in the interest of the people of J&K as a whole. They further advocate it to be out of the requirements of the circumstances under which the 1947 accession of J&K occurred with Bharat ( may be behind the scene, since there is no special technical link available with accession) and have named it as the "must bridge" with India. Majority has been from Kashmir Valley; even those who have all along held the reins of power. Those from category(1) and (2) have been over the years regularly making notes and writing on the subject but those from category (3) have mostly spoken when some one has talked of abrogation. But category ( 3 ) has been able to carry along with it most of the political parties of India except BJP and Shiv Sena. It has to be kept in view that while those who talk of abrogation & write for abrogation have not been able gather mass public support from the people of other Indian states.
In a seminar egos don´t clash: It was on January 31st 1992 that I first called for a National Seminar (not a debate ) on Article # 370# through a column in Daily Excelsior ( Article 370- Need for National seminar) categorically stating that the need is for a seminar since in a debate there is very less ( rather remote) scope left in the wills of the participants for agreeing to the view point of other side where as in a seminar there is no question of defeat or victory in appreciating other side if convinced. I did mention some reference points for discussion. But unfortunately all along these years isolated views have been expressed. May be those who talked had more of political motives only. The call for seminar has been given even in 2006 by me but unfortunately there appeared very less seriousness. Ofcourse some references to Accession of J&K with Dominion of Bharat too are often made in discussions. Need is more severe since after 1989 Kashmir affairs are more discussed ( in this or that context) on foreign lands even by those who do not fall in separatist class. Points of reference for the seminar could be:
Why did Maharaja Hari Singh not accede to Union of India on or before 14th August 1947? Did he have any logic / reservation in view of Indian Independence Act and partition of British India? (2 ).Was there any commitment with Maharaja Hari Singh of the type of the contents of Article 370 of Indian Constitution that could form one of the preconditions for Hari Singh agreeing for accession with India? (3) Did Hari Singh decide for rethinking at the eleventh hour? Was he under the influence of some local advisors ( may be from Jammu Province) on the subject? ( 4 ) Was the text of instrument of accession for J&K different than that was for other acceding princely states?. ( 5 ).What did Sheikh Abdullah want before 14-8-1947 & did he on record before that any time advocate Independent Kashmir or J&K? (6) Was there any other political group in J&K in August1947 enjoying more support or reasonable support in comparison to National Conference if not in whole of J&K atleast in Jammu Province?.( 7 ) What did the then leadership from Jammu province want (that too comprised of large Muslim population )? What did the leadership of Kashmir region & that of Ladakh look at? Did any opinion of people restrict Hari Singh?. (8) Was J&K part of any country other than Bharat in the past? Was so the case with only Kashmir Valley if not J&K as a whole? (9).Do we really need a ´bridge´ between India and J&K?.(10) Why did Indian National Congress not work actively as a political party in J&K in late thirties and forties?. (11).Why did Lord Mountbatten , the then Governor General of India while accepting the Instrument of accession on 27th October 1947 on behalf of Government of India cover the Instrument of Accession with a letter saying that " It is my Government´s wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and it´s soil cleared of invaders, the question of State´s accession should be settled by a reference to the people" even when Maharaja Hari Singh in his letter dated 26th October 1947 had said, " I have to inform your Excellency that a grave situation has arisen in my State and request the immediate assistance of your Government……The people of my State, both Muslims and non Muslims, generally have taken no part at all".. and the like ?. (12) Had Pundit Nehru made any commitment to Sheikh Abdullah or any other person that lead to so much of delay in drafting of Article 370 and it´s incorporation in the Constitution in it´s present form?.(13) Why did the Government of India not manage abrogation of "temporary" Art 370 even upto 1975?.(14). How did Pandit Nehru look at the need for incorporation of Article 370? (15) Why has Delhi agreement remained a nearly concealed document till this day? What is the limitation in making its certified script public? Is it still relevant? (16) Can J&K be constitutionally like other Indian States? If not , then why? (17) Are the contents of this article drawn out carefully? If not what are the lacunae? (18) Has Article 370 outlived it´s utility or it is still needed? (19) Should this article be modified or there is no alternative than to abrogate it? How could it be abrogated without giving a chance to a politician to exploit a Muslim or a Kashmiri Muslim against other Indians?.(20) Do we need to rewrite / recast the Constitution of J&K to make J&K look more like any other Indian State? (21) Will the parliament of India for ever remain helplessly looking towards Legislature of J&K?. (22) Are the people of J&K not ´azaad´ (independent) yet? If yes, then why was not the then Prime Minister of India Mr. Narasimha Rao questioned for offering some thing short of Azaadi to people of J&K?.(23) .What difference will it make to the people of India in case J&K is given autonomy or some thing like Autonomy Resolution that Farooq Abdullah´s National Conference ( Greater Autonomy) got passed by J&K Legislature in 2000? . (24) Common people in other Indian States have not agitated against J&K having her own Constitution and Flag for last five decades, then why make so much of prestige in issues like the resolution as passed by J&K assembly on Autonomy? Only BJP has raised some questions, but we have many other political parties in India .(25 ) How well are the people of other Indian states informed about J&K? How far they are concerned?.(26).In case J&K has to have her own Constitution and her own Flag then what is the harm in limiting the accession only to the subjects as were mentioned in the instrument of accession as accepted by Lord Mountbatten on 27 October 1947? (27) .What is the simple definition of National Conference´s Greater Autonomy? (28) .What is the harm in "greater autonomy"? or what benefit it has for the people of J&K? (29) With J&K having her own constitution and two flags fluttering on equal masts can the world still so simply acknowledge J&K as India? (30). Section (3) of J&K State Constitution states that J&K is and shall remain an integral part of Union of India. Will this section weaken in case article 370 is repealed? If not, then why do some say that abrogation of this Article shall de link J&K from India ? ( 31) Are only Kashmiri leaders more in favour of this Article, if so why?
(*Daya Sagar is social activist and leading scribe on Kashmir affairs dayasagr@yahoo.co.uk)