“Nothing is as admirable in politics as a short memory’’
–John Galbraith
Nation building is an ‘ongoing’ phenomenon and in the case of India’s quest for nationhood, it is definitely ‘work in progress.’ In the light of this (grim) reality check, the raking up of the (unnecessary) debate on the revocation of Article 370 from the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J & K), a pointless and ill-timed controversy has been generated. It is even more unfortunate that a debate on a subject that has both external and internal dimensions; an issue that has plagued the strategic progression of the sub-continent for six decades has been sparked in such a ham-handed manner for short term electoral gains.
…at the time when Article 370 was framed, India was under immense pressure of the self inflicted wound of ‘plebiscite,’ which would have been impossible to win without the support of the Sheikh.
On the contrary, the debate needs to be vilified as on one hand, it hopes to encash on India’s recent democratic victory and on the other hand, Kashmir’s political parties have been quick to take up cudgels with the centre, since this gave them a rabble-rousing issue for milking in the forthcoming state elections. On the other hand, the spectacular electoral victory of a Hindu Rightist Party by a mandate rising above the spectre of caste and religion needs to be seen as the real victory for secularity as envisaged by the framers of India’s constitution and the protagonists of pseudo-secularity and political wheeler-dealers and their ilk need to note this positive change in the mood of the nation. Having said that, since like Mr. John Galbraith, the well-known US Ambassador to India has observed, public memory in politics is notoriously short; certain facts from the not too recent history of India’s tryst as a nation-state, as pertaining to Article 370 are recounted. Since the drama of the accession of the Princely State of J &K is generally well- known, only important points of what makes the story of Article 370 are highlighted as without them, the debate on the revival of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution could take off on a tangent, as done by India’s over-active media.
Apropos, the tribal invasion by Qabalis (tribals) in October 1947, Pakistan was quick to prop up an ‘Azad Kashmir’ government in Muzzafarabad on 25 October, i.e. even before the Indians had militarily intervened in Kashmir (27 October). Around the same time, the strategic Gilgit-Baltistan region of North Kashmir had also been taken over through a clinical coup engineered by English officers favouring Pakistan. Faced with such strategic losses and the wanton brutality of the tribals let loose by Pakistan in Kashmir, credit for setting the stage for India to take on the Pakistan sponsored marauders cannot be denied to Sheikh Abdullah and his National Conference volunteers. It was largely in recognition of the contributions made by the Sheikh firstly in rejecting Mr. Jinnah’s religion based ‘two nation theory’ and later in the first of the Kashmir Wars, that he was entrusted with control of the interim government of J & K.
While this was to be expected in the political environment that prevailed, it needs to be pointed out that in order to legitimise the unique character of the state (only Muslim dominated and being the largest Princely State with contiguous borders with both Pakistan and India), the Sheikh managed to extract concessions that not only went against the essence of secular India, but also against the secularity professed by his own National Conference party. However, these were extra-ordinary circumstances and the events and developments as they were enacted, need to be viewed through the prism of the times. These were considered politically expedient at a time when the nation was still finding its feet, and the credibility of secular India to stay united without the glue of religion was debatable.
Within the promulgation of the Indian Constitution on 26 January 1950, Article 1 made it abundantly clear that J & K was an integral part of India and Article 370 merely defined the state’s ‘special status’ within the Union.
Apart from the uniqueness of the accession of Kashmir, it is also important to highlight that at the time when Article 370 was framed, India was under immense pressure of the self inflicted wound of ‘plebiscite,’ which would have been impossible to win without the support of the Sheikh. This was a reality of the times that was not only known to Pundit Nehru and Sardar Patel, but also to Messer’s Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan of Pakistan. It was at this time of swinging fortunes that Sheikh Abdullah, the rallying point and figurehead for the verdict expected to go in India’s favour, was ready to hitch the fate of the state with the secular cauldron that was India in the making. Under the circumstances when the eyes of the world were riveted on India, and the fact that Pakistan enjoyed the favour of her western benefactors due to the compulsions of the Cold War, Article 370 was (skilfully) crafted as a ‘compromise’ between ‘total autonomy’ as demanded by Kashmir (Sheikh and even Maharaja Hari Singh) and ‘full integration’ with secular India.
It was based on this reassurance that on 18 January 1948, Sheikh Abdullah said, “We the people of J & K have thrown our lot with the Indian people, not in the heat of oppression or a moment of despair, but by deliberate choice.” As a quid-pro-quo, the Government in New Delhi respected the state’s character by enacting Article 370. Within the promulgation of the Indian Constitution on 26 January 1950, Article 1 made it abundantly clear that J & K was an integral part of India and Article 370 merely defined the state’s ‘special status’ within the Union. It then went on to stipulate that the Legislative Authority of the Indian Parliament was confined to matters specified in the accession instrument – Defence, External Affairs and Communications. It may be of interest to the readers that the wording of the Accession Instrument was the same as demanded from the other 561 other Maharaja’s, Rajas, Nawabs Nizams and the like of the Princely states.
What makes the integration of the state of J & K different is the fact that despite the impassioned words of Mr Omar Abdullah (Parliament debates), that Kashmir is part and parcel of secular India, it is India, who has been unsuccessful to create conditions for the Kashmiris to feel that they are equal partners in this ‘secular’ nation and stake holders in her progression. Actually, J & K is not the only state to harbour such feelings; there are also other regions that despite sixty-seven years of India’s independence are not overly proud to identify with the largest secular nation of the world. It was because of this disparateness, the government of the times felt it prudent to extend (similar) constitutional concessions (Article 371, ranging from ‘A’ to ‘I’) to many (other) parts of India. Since, the desired results have not been achieved, as is the case in J & K, it is a collective failure of successive governments to assuage their feelings of ‘deprivation’ leading to separatist feelings and it is this failing of New Delhi that needs urgent attention by those now entrusted with India’s political destiny.
…it was rumoured that he (Sheikh) had sought US support for the independence of the state, in return of promising military bases in the state.
Getting back to Kashmir and the debate on Article 370. October 1951, marked the first elections in India based on the principle of ‘universal adult suffrage.’ In view of the immense popularity of the Sheikh, the results in J & K were predictable and all 75 seats were swept by his National Conference. In the opening address itself Sheikh Abdullah again ruled out the notion of independence on the Swiss model, calling it ‘impractical.’ He then went on to elaborate his reasons for not wishing to join Pakistan. “This claim of being a Muslim State is of course only a camouflage. It is a screen to dupe the common man, so that he may not see clearly that Pakistan is a feudal state in which a clique is trying to maintain itself in power.” Sheikh Abdullah, the undisputed Kashmiri leader was appointed as the Prime Minister as scripted in Article 370 to maintain her unique character.
The Delhi Pact that followed on 24 July 1952 was another compromise that helped Sheikh Abdullah to further his hold and permitted the state to have a distinctive identity under its own constitution and flag. The agreement was a follow up to Article 370 that had been framed as a ‘temporary’ provision to be replaced as and when ‘the wishes of the people’ of J & K had been ascertained on the larger issue of merger. Hence, while accession of J & K per se was similar to the ones signed by other princes, the merger was constitutionally formalised through Article 370 and this was to be ratified ‘as and when’ the people spoke in favour of accession. On the other hand, the state was brought under limited jurisprudence of the Indian Constitution, which now included the provision of taking over governance, in the eventuality of breakdown of law and order – this was a significant move towards closer integration of the state with India.
Notwithstanding, the Sheikh was to shift from his stance taken on plebiscite due to political expediency and in May, 1953, the National Conference set up an internal committee to capitalise on the uncertainty over the issue. In the terms of reference given to the committee, the option of independence was included for the first time and this was seen as treason by the Indian government. The relationship had travelled a full circle as despite espousing the finality of the Kashmiri accession in the UN and the all-out support to the war effort, Sheikh Abdullah did a volte-face. As a result, his relations with the centre now became one of love and hate, despite his personal equation with Pundit Nehru. By 1953, the honeymoon was over and marked a watershed in state’s relationship with the Centre and (unnecessarily) placed the accession under a cloud. Rumour mills in Delhi speculated on the motive of the Sheik’s meetings with Mr Adlai Stevenson, the US Presidential candidate in Srinagar and it was rumoured that he had sought US support for the independence of the state, in return of promising military bases in the state. The situation exacerbated after his meeting with Prime Minister Chou-en-Lai at Algiers and the Sheikh was eventually arrested in August 1953, on charges of ‘inciting communal disharmony; fostering hostile feelings towards India and treasonable correspondence with foreign powers.’
Please wait...
I don’t understand the treachery of the Congress and the Kashmiri political class. Where Congress is concerned (i don’t even want to consider Jawaharlal’s actions), it reeks of minority appeasement & opportunism even to the point of being treacherous to India as a nation. And about the kashmiris that use the term :kashmiriyat” at the drop of a hat, it just is a fanatical religious view of keeping the state a muslim majority state & nothing else. The Article 370 clearly elucidates the mindset of this majoritarian view of the political class. To keep this article is a treachery to India & every India. The sooner it is abrogated & thrown in the dust bin of history, the better it will be.
The Delhi Pact that followed on 24 July 1952 was another compromise that helped Sheikh Abdullah to further his hold and permitted the state to have a distinctive identity under its own constitution and flag. The agreement was a follow up to Article 370 that had been framed as a ‘temporary’ provision to be replaced as and when ‘the wishes of the people’ of J & K had been ascertained on the larger issue of merger.
I just finished a 51 days drive trip across India with three like minded friends. We spent major part in NE and JK. Our goal was to learn what really unites us as Indians by interviewing people and understanding their thoughts.
Kashmir is a basket case. There are too many stake holders with diverse and selfish interest working on a tired, saddened and rudderless population. On a brighter note, young, resurgent and progressive Kashmiris are eager to participate in economic development. Despite youngsters the region is is still a basket case because no one trusts anyone.
In this scenario Brig Cheema recommends us to bite the bullet by allowing people of Kashmir to choose between keeping article 370 and remaining exclusive or become one of us by dropping it. Assuming that the choice is given and Kashmiris opt to keep 370; how will jobs be created ? I cannot imagine that rest of India will continue doling out cash to a state which has made a conscious choice to remain exclusive despite being an integral part of india. Not only that, we end up scaling militarisation of the Valley to prevent outsiders from trying to unlock our deadlock to their advantage.
So in my view it makes better sense to bite the bullet and scrap 370, make and meet commitments, earn trust of young Kashmiris through deeper engagements and co-operation.
I think Brig Cheema forgot while writing the article that when he talks about ‘Kashmiriyat’ it also includes the Kashmiri brahmins who were driven out of Kashmir as a result of a well planned ethnic cleansing process. Asking the Abdullas and the muftis to decide the fate of kashmir is like asking a thief to guard a bank. Article 370, a temporary provision of our constitution which was created because a former prime minister gave in to the demands of a feudal lord who wanted to fulfill his ambition of ruling kashmir, should have been scrapped long back, but it still continues to exist because of the selfish motives of a select few. These select few dare to threaten us that if 370 is revoked, then Kashmir will not be a part of India. Kashmir is an integral part of India and will continue to remain so and to ensure that it does and to ensure that the people of Kashmir join the mainstream, it is extremely important to scrap 370.
Brig Cheema seems to be living in a world of make-believe – if he honestly expects us to accept the trash he serves as arguments in favour of retaining Article 370.
Let’s be honest as expected from an senior Indian Army officer– the Kashmir Valley is hardly the land of rare fairy tale exotic Shangri-La that needs to be “preserved” (read as isolated) in perpetuity. What Article 370 has done is to isolate the state from the ongoing legislative and economic reforms. That isolation has lead to the state being virtually a basket case surviving only on the hefty dole being given by the Central Govt. And that dole has done little good to the common man – there is heavy corruption, no development and abject poverty, especially in the interiors.
It’s also a badly kept secret that every local militant is given a monthly payment and other fiscal incentives to remain in that circuit by our ‘friends’ across the LoC. It’s a well oiled machinery that fills the existing vacuum of lack of jobs and abject poverty and of course, helped with religious propaganda. As a fundamental step to tackle all this, we need to remove that vacuum – which can only be done by creating jobs for the locals – which requires developing the local economy. This in turn, means removing the root cause of isolation, which one does not need a rocket scientist to reason out – is Article 370.
Super article And thanks for sharing
Here are three reasons why we must disagree with Brig Cheema’s view on continuing Article 370.
1. The political dynamics in the Indian state of Kashmir are rapidly turning against the long term security interests of India. It is not possible to maintain peace and progress when the local politicians are out-shouting each other to proclaim separation from India. The state’s economic development is at a standstill while the Indian taxpayers are required to fund the deficits.
2. Kashmir is not just a far away remote area, it is a junction of three nations, two of which are considered mortal enemies of India. The waterways into India originate in the region, The military defense of India in the Northern sector will be effected severely if Kashmir is handed over to the enemy. Don’t forget, the battle cry of the terrorists in Pakistan. Kashmir is just a beginning of their jihad, their goal is to transform India into a Islamic state based on Sharia laws.
3. The credibility of the secular concept of the Indian democracy becomes shaky if India continues to accept Article 370 as a means of governance of a state in perpetuity. The feelings of a small minority should not be hurt is a non-sense perpetuated by the apologists of the bygone era. India has been a victim of repeated brutal and senseless violence at the hands of terrorists from Pakistan, and too many to recount. Kashmir has been at the center stage of this conundrum. Just ask any terrorist. Now, to say that the past must be protected because of the deals cut by the leaders who were looking after the larger interest of India, is hypocritical. The nation of 1.2 billion is struggling to lift itself from the impoverished past, hungry for a better life and want secure borders. National integration is a fundamental need and Kashmir’s integration is critical no matter how you cut it. It is high time that an open debate in the Indian parliament on Article 370 begin.