B L Saraf
In an interaction with a section of Jammu civil society, held last month in a bid to bring peace to J&K, the former Union Minister and Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar suggested “return to accession will prove a mother of all CBMs as a way ahead to resolve Kashmir dispute.” He revealed that former Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram had, in the wake of 2010 Valley unrest, recommended this approach to the Cabinet Committee on Security ( CCS ) during UPA 11 rule. That, however, didn’t find favor with the Committee. Aiyar supported the idea and said “the returning back to 1947 situation …. return to accession was necessary to repair the damage to the special status through erosion of its autonomy will be mother of all Confidence Building Measures ( CBMs ). It will restore the shattered confidence of major stake holders and end the deepening discontent and alienation among the masses ……..”
Mani Shankar Aiyar didn’t dwell further on the point. So, we are left with a bald statement that reverting to 1947 when J& K acceded to India would be the ‘Mother of all CBMs.’ It would be better if Chidambaram himself says so. He has been critical of the incumbent Central Governments’ approach and is quite active in advising it how to deal with the K issue. One could then ask him-was his advice to the C C S a one liner, or tendered in a package as to satisfy all the stake holders. After all, ‘K “issue is not one-dimensional.
Before one appreciates efficacy of the prescribed ‘ medicine’ he must understand genesis of the accession. The idea of accession was incorporated in Government of India Act 1935 and latter on came to be adopted by Indian Independence Act, 1947, vide subsection (4) to Section 2. Shorn off the details, it was meant to create All Indian Federation by associating Princely States with the British India. When in June, 1947 the British zeroed in on the date to leave India a process was set in to integrate Princely States with the upcoming Dominions of India and Pakistan, which formally took shape on 15th August,1947. For the desired purpose, an Instrument of Accession was prepared by a committee commissioned by the States Department of GOI. It was not a State or province specific document but prepared for the universal application with identical recitations. Same instrument was employed when J &K acceded to India on 26th October, 1947. There is nothing special in it for J &K to make it a basis for renegotiating the Centre State relations. More so, when two Constitutions which followed the accession are available for guidance.
True, the Instrument left much to the jurisdiction of States. But, as V P Menon says in his book Integration of The Indian States, it was so as a part of strategy to overcome time constraints and bring in a few resistant Rulers. The situation kept evolving till Union Constitution settled the matter. In our case, the State constitution did the rest.
There is no denying that the festering ‘K ‘problem needs to be sorted out, earnestly. But, former Home Minister’s idea raises more questions than answers any. Would it be feasible to revert to those turbulent and destabilizing days of 1947 when the event of accession took place: without, first, calling upon all the ‘ stake holders ‘ – major or minor – to submit to the Accession? Going to 1947 would mean jumping over 1950 and 1956 which mark the coming into existence of Union Constitution and the state Constitution, respectively. Could any solution to the K problem be ever possible by ignoring these Constitutions? If we go back to the accession period aren’t we handing on platter an opportunity to the separatists to rewrite the history and redraw geography of the Sub- Continent , of their own choice ?
Remember, there are many in the “separatist sympathizer group “who clamour for rewriting the State Constitution to dilute Sections 3 and 147, which have put a final seal on J&K’s relation with India and rendered this relationship immune to any amendment . So would the hyper – nationalists get an opportunity to launch a campaign to do away with Articles 370 and 35A of the Union Constitution and Section 6 of the State Constitution.
Accession has to be a CBM for all the “stake holders ‘- separatists included. So, every stake holder must acknowledge existence and a legal character of the Instrument of Accession if the document is to be considered a baseline for a ” meaningful and result oriented “inter-locution and consequent resolution of the issue. There is no dearth of men and women in the Kashmir civil society who deny the very existence of the instrument, or at best, question its authenticity.
October, 26 is a day is to renew the pledge that binds J&K with India. Equally, it affords an opportunity to recall those promises and commitments which define the relationship. We have many inter-regional issues to contend with which must be sorted out. When resolved, we can forge a state-wise alliance that will act as a bulwark against the fissiparous and polarizing elements.
Accession of J&K happened in extra ordinary circumstances and at trying times. Though document of accession binds J&K with the Indian union unconditionally and irrevocably, yet certain commitments were articulated which helped cement the relationship and took care of attending peculiarities. While it will neither be possible nor desirable to put clock back as Chidambaram would like to happen, certainly, the commitments and the promises – which have found manifestation through various provisions in the Union and state Constitutions call for a firm reiteration by the political forces ruling in New Delhi. The least that could be done, in this regard, is not to tamper with what is available to vindicate those assurances.
(The author is a Former Principal District & Sessions Judge)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel