B. L. Saraf
Come October mixed feelings cross our mind. October, 1947 witnessed Jammu & Kashmir history being written in blood . But it also saw hope springing up from the debris. Pakistan aided tribal looters plundered the state; Maharaja’s decision to accede to the Indian union ushered in a dawn of hope. It is time to take stock of things. For the nationalists it is a month to celebrate, albeit with some reservations; for the separatists it is time to mourn unconditionally. In the tussle, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the principal protagonists in the drama, stand condemned as the ‘sinners’. Nationalists accuse Nehru of having brought in element of ‘self–determination’ and uncertainty in the J&K–India relations, while as separatists charge him of duping the Kashmiris into an unnatural relationship with India . Sheikh is accused by the nationalists for nursing an idea of becoming ‘Sultan of Kashmir’. Separatists, on the other hand , charge him of bringing India to Kashmir , much against the wishes of the ‘ majority’.
To Nehru and Sheikh; Apney be khafa Beganey be naa khush.
History is not what one thinks about it. It is what we can remember. To evaluate role of Nehru and Sheikh sense of history is sine–quo–non. Emotions have no place. Kashmir has had centuries old spiritual and civilizational relations with the Indian mainland. But their present Constitutional relationship has seeds sown in a meeting that took place between Pandit Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah in early 1937, in Lahore. Sheikh Abdullah was so impressed by Nehru and his views that he “ felt if leaders of Muslim Conference have to seek support from the Indian nationalists they will have to enlarge their vision and bring changes in the name and constitution of the party.” Aatish e Chinaar p 228 . It did happen and Muslim Conference lead by Sheikh changed to secular and inclusive National Conference open to all the sections. The N C was subsequently affiliated to the All – India States People’s Conference. Thus began a commraderrai between Nehru and Abdullah, partly on personal level and partly on the shared ideology, which, largely, became instrumental in state acceding to the Indian Union on 26th October 1947 .
A particular section has always accused Nehru of creating problems in Kashmir. They hold him guilty of introducing a conditionality in the state’s accession with the Union, by insisting that before the accession attains finality wishes of people of the state should be ascertained . With the change of guard at the national capitol and in the state it has become fashionable to assail Jawaharlal for everything that went wrong over the period . His Kashmir policy have come in for strident criticism. Nehru may have faulted on number of matters. But with respect to J&K charge against him is completely misplaced. History exonerates him. V P Menon, the leading dramatist persona of the period, tells the inside story in his book Integration of The Indian States p 399, that it was Lord Mountbatten who was of the opinion that accession of J&K should be conditional on the will of the people being ascertained by plebiscite , after the raiders had been driven out of the state . This was agreed to by Nehru and his Ministers , p 399. This version is duly supported by S. Gopal in his book Jawaharlal Nehru Vol 11 p 20. Nehru did not introduce concept of plebiscite. If he is guilty of agreeing with Mountbatten so are his cabinet colleagues.
The opinion of Mountbatten found shape in his letter to the Maharaja written while accepting his offer of accession. Anyway, the letter does not give anything to the opponents of the accession; nor a cause to the Nehru baiters. What does it contain ? A declaration to democratize the State. It does not create any right , whose observance can be insisted up on. Krishna Menon, while making a speech in the UN Security Council on 23rd January, 1957 explained the matter . He said “We may then be asked ; What is the meaning of a letter written by Earl Mountbatten , when he was Governor – General of India , to the Maharaja about consulting wishes of the people. … . As I pointed out there is document of accession . There is an offer and then there is acceptance….. The letter of Mountbatten is a separate document and has nothing to do with this. What does that document do? IT makes no guarantee. It expresses wish of the Government of India–not as a part of law, but as part of political policy…” He then referred to the Constituent Assembly of the state and explained how people of the state have been consulted. Kashmir–Krishna Menon’s speeches in Security Council ( Publication Division of Ministry Of Information GOI Ps 42, 43 )
“ The loin of Kashmir was all for India……… .” Y.D Gundevia Nehru’s Foreign Secretary records it in his book Outside The Archives p 231 , after having met Sheikh Abdullah in 1949. At p 222 he writes that Sheikh was totally against the independence of Kashmir. According to Sheikh Abdullah “Kashmir is too small and too poor. Pakistan would swallow Kashmir at one gulp . They have tried it once , they will do it again.” Sheikh publically debunked Jinnah’s ‘ two nation’ theory. His close association with Nehru alone did not force him to link fate of the state with India. Sheikh felt obliged to do so because, in his own words, We have allied with India on the basis of commonality of values and principles ; not on the liking of personalities.” Aatish-e-Chinnar p 345.
Remove Jawaharlal Nehru and Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah from the Indian discourse on Kashmir , what remains there for the nationalists to the celebrate? Without them we will have to write new history and geography of the sub – continent, much to the liking of the separatists. For us , the state of J&K within the federal fold of the Indian Union is far better option than to have it fallen apart of the Indian constellation .
Nehru and the Sheikh are not the sinners and no sin will find them out.
(The author is former Principal District & Sessions Judge)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Follow our WhatsApp channel