What is the Motive Behind Abrogation of Article 370?

(Kuradi Chandrasekhara Kalkura)

The motive behind the abrogation Articles 370 and 35 A appears more to seize an opportunity to condemn Nehru, the First Prime Minister of India than to alleviate the pitiable living conditions of the Kashmiris.

In Social Media and general discussions. the vulgarity has transgressed all borders of decency and traveled deep inside. The accusation is not only by the low and the trivial; even by the high and responsible. Six generations of the Nehru family has been  blamed for all the ills. Even the below average, if not debased, the debate in the Parliament reflected the general tone and tenor of the ruling party.

One important matter that has been missing in the discussions, is the agitations, movements and the struggle that was being carried out in the Princely States. Almost in every state, small or big it was under the banner of the Congress. Even in a small state like Banaganapalle, in Kurnool, with less than a lakh population and 200 Sq k.m.s of territory, there was a movement under the leadership of  P.Venkatasubbaiah, who later became a Member of Parliament, Dy. Minister and a Governor. When he was asked as to why he was leading a low profile movement, he said: “Your Viceroy cannot take away your life. There is a semblance of a Judiciary in British India. This wretched Nawab can order my hanging, execute it and see my dead body.” History has not paid enough attention to the movements in the Princely States.

Autobiographies and biographies of the leaders like Swamy Ramananda Teertha, Pandit Taranath, Burugula Ramakrishna Rao, Gadiyaram Ramakrishna Sarma of Hyderabad state and S.Nijalingappa of Mysore tell us about the disturbance they created and the horror faced by them.

The following quote would illustrate the task faced by the States’ People.

Patel – Nehru supported the congress’ official policy regarding the States’ People’s Movement.

Nehru to Maallappa, an eminent Congress leader from Mysore on 9/7/36.  (Page 59.)

“The congress has declared itself in favor of identical political, social and economic freedom for the whole of India, including specifically the states. As the far as objective goes, it is not easy to improve upon this, though it could be clarified further. As for the activities to be undertaken, it has laid stress on the obvious fact the burden of the struggle in the states must inevitably lie on the people of the states. The stress on this fact may be too great, but the fact remains that the congress cannot do much today in the states and it would be deluding the states’ people to make them think otherwise. There seems to be far too great a tendency to make the Congress pass bombastic resolutions which it cannot give effect to. (emphasis mine). For my part, I should like the stress to be varied a little, but that is not a vital matter. We seem to be arguing secondary matters forgetting the main issue.”     (NEHRU –  PATEL, Agreement within Differences. Published by National Book Trust, Edited by Neeraja Singh. Select Documents and Correspondence, 1933-1950.)

There is some more correspondence in the book, with more details. Any number of such incidents can be quoted.

As matters stood like this, sensing the pulse of the people and their heroic struggle, enlightened Princes like the Wodeyar of Mysore, Gaikwad of Baroda, Singhs and Rajahs of Jodhpur, Jaipur and Udaypur, etc readily, signed on the dotted lines of the Instruments of Accession.

People resisted the move of the Nawab of Junaghad to accede to Pakistan and he was forced to flee to Pakistan.  We cannot discount the consequences of the Armed Struggle of the Communists and the awakening movement of the Arya Samaj in Hyderabad State.

While the former broke the backbone of the feudalism, ran riot by the Deshmukhs, Kulkanrins and Doras and weakened the Patels and Patwaries hold, in the rural areas, the latter removed the fear psychosis among the urban elite. Razkaras were retorted. Nizam’s Force was under stress. People were ready with a platform to receive the Indian Army and the Sardar. Such comments shall not be considered to mean belittling the Sardar.  At the same time, the heroic deeds of other groups and organizations shall not be ignored.

Whereas in the whole of India, Congress was the driving force in the states, in Jammu and Kashmir, Sheik Abhullah was the undisputed leader. To apply Shakespearean expression: “Even a grass would not wither without his command;” particularly in the Valley. At the same time he was power hungry. This was admitted even by the bitterest critics of Nehru.  Sheik set up his own camp under the Banner ‘National Conference’. Gandhiji was in Jammu and Kashmir for about five days in the first week of August, 1947. Though the Raja Hari Singh was eager to remove his mediocre Prime Minister, Ramachandra Kak and entrust the responsibility to an efficient person, he was in no mood to sign the Instruments of Accession.  Only on the 15th October, 1947 Mehar Chand Mahajan was appointed the Prime Minister. By that time Kashmir was in a mess. Had the Raja signed the Instruments of Accession, before the Pakistani troops landed in Kashmir, he would have pre-empted the evil designs of the Sheik.  Not only was the Sheik, even Hari Singh a party to the demand for special status. There were only two alternatives; either allow Pakistan to occupy the whole of Kashmir or accept the conditions imposed by the Sheik and Hari Singh. It was a choice between the devil and the deep sea. Mahajan in his Autobiography LOOKING BACK blames Nehru only for taking the issue to the UNO. It was ironic that the UNO had bypassed the complaint, Pak aggression in Kashmir and created its own agenda, Kashmir’s accession with India.

All sorts of cock and bulls stories are weaved and told and retold, circulated and reiterated about Article 370 and 35 A.  There were 299 members in the Constituent Assembly. Nehru was one among them. There were Sardar Patel and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee too. There were dissenting voices in the Assembly. From the final speech of Ambedkar on 25th Nov.1949, it is amply visible that no objection was raised to by these stalwarts against Art 370. Ambedkar said:  ” The proceedings of this Constituent Assembly would have been very dull if all members had yielded to the rule of party discipline. Party discipline, in all its rigidity, would have converted this Assembly into a gathering of yes’ men. Fortunately, there were rebels. They were Mr. Kamath, Dr. P.S. Deshmukh, Mr. Sidhva, Prof. K.T. Shah and Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru. The points they raised were mostly ideological. That I was not prepared to accept their suggestions does not diminish the value of their suggestions nor lessen the service they have rendered to the Assembly in enlivening its proceedings. I am grateful to them. But for them, I would not have had the opportunity which I got for expounding the principles underlying the Constitution which was more important than the mere mechanical work of passing the Constitution.”

It would not be possible to deal with the whole matter in this space-constrained article.  Articles  370, and 35 A are abrogated. Its Constitutionality is being questioned in the Supreme Court. Let us ponder over the realities. People of Kashmir are not taken into confidence; not an attempt is made to win over the people’s faith. Even the mightiest emperors won the battles only when there was discontentment in the enemy camps. E.G. Aurangajeb failed where Akbar had earlier succeeded. Srikrishnadevaraya could conquer almost  the whole of S.India, because the contemporary rulers, like Deccan Sultans and Gajapathies of Orissa/Kalinga, were autocratic, timid, unpopular and weak.  It is nearly a month since a curfew like situation prevails in the States.  Fundamental Rights are not yet restored to the people. Press was gagged during the Emergency, Now it is silenced; at any rate not free. Hence a fair report is not received from Kashmir.  The ruling dispensation is selecting the choicest vocabulary to blame Nehru and the Congress for all the mishaps in Kashmir since 1947.  History is a tyrant. Will it exonerate and excuse the present, if it finds loopholes and lapses in the Thumb Rule in Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.