NEHRU HATCHED FOUR
CONSPIRACIES AGAINST THE NATION: PROF HARI OM
It is a well known fact that the nominated Governor-General of
India, Louis Mountbatten, and the first Prime Minister of independent India,
Jawaharlal Nehru, never wanted the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir to
become part of the Indian Dominion. Hence, I will not focus on this aspect of
the anti-India role played by Mountbatten and Nehru. Suffice to say that both
subverted the Indian Independence Act of 1947 by holding out a commitment that
it will be for the people of the State to endorse (or not endorse) the decision
of Maharaja Hari Singh on the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India.
They committed to a plebiscite in the State completely overlooking
the fact that the Indian Independence Act did not directly or indirectly
include the right to self-determination, and that the Maharaja of Jammu and
Kashmir, like all other 560-odd princely states, alone had the authority to
take a final decision on the State’s political future.
The whole approach of Mountbatten and Nehru towards Jammu and
Kashmir was communal. Mountbatten wanted the State to become part of Pakistan
and Nehru wanted to pander to communal forces in Kashmir as represented by
Sheikh Abdullah and his ilk. Since Nehru believed in the concept of
two-nations, he hatched four conspiracies against the nation between October
26, 1947 and October 17, 1949.
His objective was to weaken the nationalist constituency in the
State and create a situation that would help the separatist and communal
leadership in Kashmir to play nefarious games calculated to end the
politico-constitutional ties between the State and the Centre and enable them
to establish Nizam-e-Mustafa, to the chagrin of the nationalists.
First conspiracy: Nehru hatched the first conspiracy in October
1947 itself. Using foul means and misusing his official position, he
manipulated the transfer of political power from Jammu to Kashmir (read Sheikh
Abdullah). Jammu had ruled over that state, which came into being in 1846, for
full 101 years (March 1846-October 1947). Kashmir became part of the Jammu
Kingdom in March 1846, and not vice-versa.
Second conspiracy: Nehru ordered ceasefire at a time when the
committed Indian Army was about to evict the Pakistani invaders from Jammu and
Kashmir territories. This was done to promote the interests of Sheikh Abdullah,
who wanted to establish a “Switzerland-type independent Kashmir”. To become
sultan of independent Kashmir was Sheikh Abdullah’s most cherished goal. Nehru
accepted his suggestion and enforced ceasefire strictly. The mindboggling
ceasefire helped Pakistan strengthen its control over the Jammu and Kashmir territories
it occupied illegally after rape, murder, loot and plunder.
Third conspiracy: Nehru tried his level best to change the
nomenclature of Jammu & Kashmir, and succeeded to an extent. The purpose
was to undermine the significance of Jammu and Ladakh. He did this on May 27,
1949.
Fourth conspiracy: The Indian Constituent Assembly at the behest
of Nehru adopted Article 306-A (Article 370) to drive the State away from the
country’s mainstream politics and accord a dangerous legitimacy to the politics
of separatism, based on religious fanaticism. The purpose was to tell the
international community that his Government did not consider Jammu and Kashmir
to be an integral part of India, as it was a Muslim-majority state.
I will not reflect on the first, second and fourth conspiracies,
as many are aware of their evil consequences, as also their adverse impact on
paramount national interests. Besides, much has already been written on these
three intrigues. I will deal with the third conspiracy in detail, as most
people are not aware of what Nehru did on May 27, 1949 to exclude Jammu and
Ladakh from the nomenclature of the state – a dubious move that created a sort
of furore in the Constituent Assembly.
What provoked this furore was the motion moved by Gopalaswami
Ayangar, then controlling the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs, to the effect that
“notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 4 (of the Schedule to the
Constituent Assembly Rules), all the seats in the Assembly allotted to the
State of Kashmir may be filled by the ruler of Kashmir (Hari Singh) on the
advice of his Prime Minister” (Sheikh Abdullah).
Several objections were raised against this official motion.
However, the one which irritated some members the most was the omission of
Jammu from the nomenclature of the State. Prominent among those who opposed the
motion were Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal) and Prof. K T Shah
(Bihar). Prof. Shah possessed first-hand knowledge about the State and its
people as well as the kind of political upheavals it had witnessed since 1931.
He remained associated with the affairs of this princely State for 15 long
years and was its Planning Advisor for a few years before October 1947. He was
also aware of the shape things would assume in Jammu & Kashmir in the days
to come as he had a 15-day long interaction with National Conference president
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, who had gone all the way from Srinagar to Mumbai to
discuss with him his New Kashmir Plan.
(The NC adopted “New Kashmir” programme in September, 1944 and
demanded that “the Treaty of Amritsar dated March 16, 1846, signed between
Maharaja Gulab Singh and the then British Government of India, which was in the
nature of sale deed and was thus an insult to the people of the State (Kashmir)
must go lock, stock and barrel. This became the theme of the ‘Quit Kashmir’
movement, which was launched in early 1946 - April-May” (Report of the State
Autonomy Committee, Jammu, April, 1999, P. 11).
While Pandit Maitra put question after question to know “if the
word ‘Kashmir’ includes both Jammu and Kashmir”, Prof. Shah moved an amendment
to the official motion and made an appeal to the Constituent Assembly to ensure
that the words “Jammu and” also figure before the word “Kashmir wherever it
occurs”.
Moving the amendment, Prof Shah said: “…There is some significance
in this matter, which makes it more than ever necessary that you (Ayyangar)
should not omit the other part (Jammu), and, if one may say so, the first part
of the title of that ancient State. By calling it the State of Kashmir only you
are perpetrating an error… May I ask… if we have made a mistake in the first
instance, if we have been carried away by the importance of one sect
(Kashmiri-speaking Sunni Muslims) of the State, by the importance of personages
(the Sheikh and his colleagues) connected with that part of the State, is that
any reason why we should forget the other side and no less important part of
the State; and in this formal document continue to perpetuate that mistake and
speak only of Kashmir, when we really mean Jammu and Kashmir? It is a fact not
denied by the mover that is the correct name of the State”.
Prof. Shah told the Constituent Assembly that the relations
between Kashmir and Jammu were not very cordial. He said: “Those at any rate
who remember the campaign of the present Prime Minister (Sheikh Abdullah) of
the State in connection with (the 1946) Quit Kashmir movement will realize that
in the sequence of events that have happened, it is liable, if you describe it
in this manner, to be gravely misunderstood wherever such nomenclature is
allowed to be used; and our public records will be disfigured to that extent…
The State of Jammu and Kashmir is correctly described as Jammu and Kashmir, so
to say, there are two States in one kingdom, just as Scotland and England were
two States under the first of the Stuarts. The king was the King James the
Sixth of Scotland and King James the First of England. There were two crowns
worn by one person. In regard to the State of Jammu and Kashmir until about the
communal rising in 1931, it was for all practical administrative purposes
actually divided into two provinces more or less distinct, though under the
same ruler…”
He did not stop there. Prof. Shah cautioned the Constituent
Assembly, “the matter of nomenclature is not merely a matter of verbal
emendation that it has behind it a significance, a significance, in the
sequence of events, not confined only to this House or this country. It has
repercussions outside this country… Therefore, we must be careful in every word
that we use, so that our expression, our nomenclature, our whole wording is in
conformity with the situation and the correct facts”.
In reply to Pandit Maitra, Ayyangar said: “Kashmir means Jammu and
Kashmir”. He also justified his motion saying “in the Draft Constitution, the
Schedule mentions the State of Kashmir” and “in the list that is attached to
the Constituent Assembly Rules, it is already described as Kashmir”. He urged
the members not to make this an issue and “let this description of the State of
Kashmir stand, because if you change it, we will have to change other things
which are already in our Statutes and Rules”. In other words, Ayyangar
expressed his unwillingness to insert the words “Jammu and” before Kashmir for
reasons better known to him and which failed to carry conviction with Pandit
Maitra and Prof. Shah. This is evident from the questions they raised in
response to the lengthy statement of Ayyangar on the nomenclature of the State.
Convinced that Ayyangar would not be in a position to convince
Pandit Maitra and Prof. Shah, Nehru himself took the stage. He defended
Ayyangar and said that his stand was “correct”. He said, “I have been connected
with Kashmir in many ways, and, in a sense, I belong to Kashmir more
particularly than to any part of India. I have been connected with the fight of
freedom in Kashmir… And so, if I venture to say anything in this House, I do so
with greater authority than Prof. Shah can presume to have on the subject…”
He then made a lengthy statement to counter the arguments of Prof.
Shah and in praise of Sheikh Abdullah, his party and the Quit Kashmir Movement.
At the same time, he suggested “a small change in the wording of the motion”
with a view to “removing” what he called “a slight confusion in the people’s
mind”. What he actually suggested was that the “State be described as Kashmir
State, and then putting within brackets, the words otherwise known as the State
of Kashmir and Jammu”.
It needs to be recalled that the State at no point of time during
1846-1949 was styled as the “State of Kashmir and Jammu”. It was always known
as the State of Jammu and Kashmir, with Jammu as its permanent capital. It
should also be underlined that the practice of moving the State Secretariat
from Jammu to Kashmir and back was started during the time of Maharaja Ranbir
Singh (1857-1885) for reasons political, the most noteworthy being the British
design to cause an anti-Maharaja stir in the Valley and establish their
foothold there and in and around Gilgit in order to check Russian activities
across the border.
Mercifully, the Nehru’s formula did not click. Nor did it
discourage Prof. Shah in his efforts to enlist the support of the Constituent
Assembly in favour of his amendment. So the deadlock continued. Ultimately,
Ayyangar moved an amendment to his motion and suggested that the name of the
State be read as the State of Kashmir (otherwise known as the State of Jammu
and Kashmir)”. The Constituent Assembly adopted the amended motion.
Thus, Jammu, which had ruled over Kashmir for 101 years, found
space in the nomenclature of the State, though within brackets. This happened
primarily because of the efforts put in by the unyielding Prof. Shah, with
Pandit Maitra extending him full support. Had they, like other members of the
Constituent Assembly, remained mum or toed the official line, Jammu would have
totally disappeared from the nomenclature of the State (Constituent Assembly
Debates, Book No 3, Vol. VIII, May 16, 1949 to June 16, 1949, Reprinted by
Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, Second Reprint, 1989, pp. 357-373).
It is not difficult to conclude, from what transpired in the
Constituent Assembly, that Nehru did his best to muddy Indian waters in Kashmir
and help Sheikh Abdullah communalise the polity there.
