Brig Anil Gupta
Much unwanted noise is being made by the NC leadership over dropping of Sher-e-Kashmir prefix from SKICC knowing fully well that the administration is only meeting its constitutional obligation as mandated by Article 18 of the Constitution of India. There is no denying the fact that renaming institutions won’t change history but at the same time history cannot allowed to be distorted to sell a particular narrative which is one sided and is backed by half-truth and adjectives only. While renaming is a constitutional requirement, linking it with an effort to belittle the image of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah is nothing but unethical and an attempt to sell a narrative to mislead the youth of the state.
No political personality can escape public scrutiny irrespective of his/her stature. Sheikh Abdullah has played a definite role and has a prominent place in the history of Jammu & Kashmir but all his actions were not as being claimed by his party men. Documentary evidence and eye witness accounts bear testimony to that. “Victim” card is being used to woo the youth by portraying him as a very popular, secular and democratic, undisputed leader of the entire state hoping that the youth would get carried away by a one-sided narrative.
To claim Sheikh Abdullah to be epitome of secularism because he rejected Jinnah’s two-nation theory is partly true. Sheikh did reject Jinnah’s offer initially but not because of two-nation theory but because of the fear of being overshadowed by taller political personalities like Chaudhary Abbas whose Muslim Conference had already joined hands with Jinnah’s Muslim League. He was afraid that he wouldn’t get the prominence he desired as undisputed leader of J&K.The split of Muslim Conference and National Conference virtually divided the state’s Muslims into Kashmiri Muslims led by the Sheikh and the Jammu Muslims led by the Chaudhary.
Chaudhary Abbas in his autobiography Kashmakash has written about an agreement signed between him and Sheikh Abdullah on changing the name and character of Muslim Conference which was never denied by the later. It stated, “The ideology of the Indian National Congress would not be taken forward in Jammu and Kashmir by the National Conference. The Muslim League, being the single representative organisation of the Indian Muslims, won’t be opposed at any cost in Jammu and Kashmir. This could be taken to mean that the League was free to propagate its ideas and programmes.” Sheikh and his loyalists had agreed to these terms, readers can draw from this agreement their own conclusions about the secular credentials of the Sheikh and his party National Conference. Moreover, Sheikh’s decision to not to allow non-Muslim refugees from POJK, Muzaffarabad in particular, to settle anywhere in Kashmir followed by his insistence on inclusion of Article 370 to safeguard the interests of Kashmiri Muslims ignoring the sentiments of Jammu and Ladakh region whose population and area was much larger than Kashmir also betray the assertion of him being secular. Sheikh rejected two-nation theory at the face of it but in his heart of heart he wanted a Muslim majority state ruled by him within India, “A State within a State.” All his subsequent actions till his arrest in1952 point towards that and are well documented and recorded.
If Sheikh’s heart and soul was with India and was not overridden by personal ambitions then what justifies his continued dialogue with Pakistan?After Sheikh’s release from the jail after he sought a royal pardon, a deputation of Muslim League arrived in Kashmir to hold talks with Sheikh and other Kashmiri leaders. The deputation was sent by Pakistan Government to persuade Sheikh to change his mind and accede to Pakistan knowing fully well that only the Maharaja was legally competent to take such decision. The delegation offered Sheikh full internal autonomy as well as the right to secede. Sheikh insisted that any discussion on accession could be held only after Kashmir was completely free from Dogra rule. Here also he talked only of Kashmir and not the entire Jammu & Kashmir. Readers would recall that Quit Kashmir movement was not for restoration of democracy but a communal movement to get rid of a Hindu Dogra ruler by the Kashmiri Muslims. Sheikh all the while harboured the idea of becoming a Prime Minister in Maharaja’s Government so that he could take over the reins of the State and make it as his Sultanat (fiefdom) subsequently. He, however, promised to send Ghulam Muhammad Sadiq for further talks with the Pakistani Government, and to arrange a meeting between Sheikh and Jinnah. Who authorised him to do that? He never sought the royal concurrence which was required by the law of that time.
Sadiq duly went to Pakistan and met Liyaqat Ali Khan and Raja Gazanfar Ali Khan. He was assured that Kashmir would have full internal autonomy if it acceded to Pakistan. Liyaqat Ali Khan also sent a letter to Sheikh through Sadiq, promising that Kashmir’s “interests” would get “supreme attention” when the country’s foreign policy is formulated. Sheikh spurned the offer because Liaqat promised to look after Kashmir’s interests rather than Sheikh’s interest which by now had become his overbearing ambition and he realised that Nehru will be in a better position to make him realise his ambition as compared to Liaqat Ali or Jinnah. Even when Maharaja Hari Singh decided to accede to India Nehru was adamant that empowerment of the Sheikh be settled first before dealing with the issue of accession. But for the firmness of Patel and Sheikh’s note to Nehru, history may have been different. Subsequent events and Maharaja’s forced abdication and subsequent exile from the State in June 1949 speak volumes about Sheikh’s ambition and treachery. Unfortunately, Sheikh’s enmity and hatred of Maharaja turned into a hatred for Jammu Dogras which led to the rise of Praja Parishad which demanded equality for all three regions and total integration of the State with India. Sheikh Abdullah was not only manipulative but autonomist as well. The Delhi Agreement he signed with Nehru in 1952 ratified Kashmir’s autonomy restricting its total integration with India which the other two regions wanted.
The decisions to carve out Muslim majority districts of Doda and Kargil can least be termed as secular but contributing to his idea of a Greater Muslim Kashmir.
Certainly, the Sheikh can also not be described as a democrat because he rarely believed in democracy. He abhorred opposition and wanted the state to become a “Single Party” state. He crushed his opponents with iron hand and without any sympathy may it be the Karra Group in Kashmir or the members of Praja Parishad of Jammu. The illegal detention of hundreds of Praja Parishad volunteers from Jammu region under infamous “Dafa Toon” during the harsh winters of 1949 and keeping them in jail in Srinagar under clothed without basic amenities in no way was democratic. The National Conference workers chanted, “One Leader, One Party, One Programme”, and put the slogan of “Hindu, Muslim, Sikh Itihaad” on the backburner for once and all. Subsequently, it became a slogan for mere vote garnering.
The events of 1951 elections to the Constituent Assembly and the way the elections were conducted to totally annihilate the opposition, mainly the Praja Parishad, by winning 75 seats out of 75 in no way can be termed as democratic. Once Sheikh began to show his true colours he was ordered to be arrested by none other than his closest ally Nehru.
After return to power in 1975, he authored the Public Safety Act (PSA) against much opposition and resistance. But autocratic Abdullah once again prevailed over democratic Abdullah. Dynastic succession is not part of democracy. But Sheikh didn’t hesitate a bee-wit to hand over the rein to his politically novice son Farooq Abdullah throwing to the wind the claims of other deserving leaders in the Party who had helped him nurture the Party through thick and thin.
An attempt has been made to present facts in this article that may not be known to the youth of the state lest they get carried away by the one-sided narrative being sold by the NC leadership. Sheikh Abdullah can best be described as a tall Kashmiri leader but certainly not the undisputed leader of entire Jammu & Kashmir.
(The author is a Jammu based veteran, political analyst, columnist, security and strategic analyst.)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel