K B Jandial
Maharaja Sahib
There is no doubt that you are a pride of Jammu, not as much of your royal connection as of your multi- facet personality. You are intellectual, scholar, author, linguistic wizard having knowledge of many languages especially Dogri, Hindi, Sanskrit, English and also religious scriptures; exponent of Hinduism, Indian culture and its ethos, practicing philanthropist having vast experience in politics, administration, diplomacy, sweet and mesmerising eloquence, pleasing personality and above all, a man with impeccable integrity.
Despite your considered decision to “migrate” to New Delhi by “deserting” the land of Dogra your roots continue to be respected in Jammu. Your willful absence in Jammu created a huge political vacuum that exist even today, which prompted Mehbooba Mufti to say, and rightly so, that “unlike Kashmir, Jammu did not get a proper leadership to meet the aspirations of the people of the region”.
During Kashmir debate in Rajya Sabha everybody within the House and in J and K heard you with rapt attention which you deserved. With due respect and without malice, I am among many who feel you disappointed Jammu while the first timers- Shamsher Singh Manhas and Jitender Singh, got big applause.
There were many speakers who spoke with pain in heart over the causalities in Kashmir and it is natural for the country’s Parliament to share the grief of those who lost their dear ones. And also talk about taking initiatives for normalcy, resolution of political issues etc. some spoke in emotions while others brought politics in their narrations, even though there was a unanimous resolution for peace in Kashmir. Some learned parliamentarians like your good-self spoke with incorrect and contradictory facts. It was also against India’s stated position on Kashmir including 22nd February, 1994 Parliament’s resolution. Sir, your speech made some critical settled issues “wide open” that raised doubts about their finality.
Your eloquence apart, the sum total of your speech was somewhat akin to Kashmir centric politicians. Despite your acceptance of J and K an integral part of India, you strangely chose to add some fault lines that dilute the earlier assertions when you said, “It is an integral part, but what exactly the relation will be… (didn’t stop there but floated an idea to Azadi loving Kashmiris) …in many federal countries it varies…even China has one state, two systems…Hong Kong has a different system.” You supported weakening of J and K ties with India, but are we ready for it?
Sir, you made known your misgivings on J and K’s relationship with India and at one stage you came out unambiguously when said, “There is still an uncertainty with regard to exact status of J and K and its relation with the Indian Union.” At another stage you said, “So, integral part doesn’t necessarily mean it will be exactly same as everything else. So, this is an unresolved matter”. That is what most of the Kashmiris say including S. A. S Geelani except that he says openly to secede from India. But how do you say J and K is unresolved matter?
In the course of your speech, you created doubt in the minds of Indian people that J and K relationship with India is yet to be settled, government claims notwithstanding, and strengthened the skepticism of Kashmiris on their being a part of India.
You laboured hard to talk about accession that your revered father, Maharaja Hari Singh did with India on 27th October, 1947, and said that he “acceded for three subjects only-defence, communication and foreign affairs”. Yes, it is an undeniable fact. You added that, “all others states subsequently merged but J and K did not merge with India. This too is correct.
But you did not talk about the process of integration that began with following national systems like extending All India Services and extending jurisdiction of national institutions like Supreme Court, Election Commission of India, Central Audits and Accounts etc. Private sector too promoted it. It may not be on emotional plain,( mainly because of the politics) but through democratic and administrative structures, educational and professional pursuits. Merger is in respect of land but integration is more than land.
You rightly said, “J and K’s relationship with rest of India is guided by Article 370 and the State Constitution”. You mentioned special status to J and K and other developments like Delhi Agreement of 1952, adoption of State Constitution, “plethora of Presidential Orders which gradually applied increasing number of entries into it.” Are you worried about these Presidential Orders that gave us the same rights as are enjoyed by other Indians? Remember, J and K people got fundamental rights, of course with some modifications, through Presidential Order in 1954 and not before.
Since you signed J and K Constitution, there is no reason for an ordinary citizen like me to “educate” a luminary that J and K being an integral part of India and its relationship with India are well defined and irrevocably settled. Dr. Jitender Singh did read out to you the Preamble of State Constitution which declares J and K is an integral part of India. What he didn’t tell you two relevant sections of the same Constitution? Section 3 says, “J and K is and shall be integral part of the Union of India.” This relationship has been conclusively settled in section 147 as it debars the State Legislature from amending this Section 3.
Sir, you talked about “uncertainty with regard to exact status of J and K and its relation with the Indian Union”. Sir, Articles 1 and 370 clearly define State’s status in Union of India. According to Article 1, J and K is one of the states (listed at No 15 in the First Schedule) that make India a Union of States. The Indian Constitution has no provision for secession of any part of its territory. So, there should not have been any confusion about the status of J and K in India and its relationship with India that stands settled by section 3 of J and K Constitution.
Article 370 is a comprehensive provision that grants special position to J and K, often called autonomy. Its sub section 1 (b) (i) restricts Parliament’s legislative powers in respect of J and K to “matters specified in the Instrument of Accession”. This is what you said about three subjects in your speech. But the problem is that everyone, including our lawmakers, think that Article 370 ends here. But this is not so.
Sub section (1) (b) (ii) of Article 370 permits the Parliament to make laws for J and K in respect of “such other matters” in Union and Concurrent lists but ” with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify”.
Another provision of Article 370 is sub section (1) (d) which says, “such other provisions of the Constitution shall apply” to J and K ,with the concurrence of the Govt, subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify.
Like many others you too appear to feel that autonomy has been eroded after 1953. This reflects ignorance about Article 370. Whatever “plethora of Presidential orders issued to extend other entries (provisions) of the Constitution” or other laws to J and K were under Article 370 i.e. after obtaining concurrence of the State Govt. of the day. This, in fact, demolishes the argument of erosion of autonomy mostly aired by ignorant leaders who also attribute this erosion as one of the factors of Kashmir unrest.
You embarrassingly told the nation that Kashmir is not India’s internal matter. “First, we ‘insist’ J and K is an internal affair. ….” there is a “major international” aspect to it. There are Pakistan and China. “India bluntly says it is an internal matter. We have to realise what it means.” Unwittingly you demolish India’s well known stand of being bilateral and not international issue.
Pakistan illegally occupied a part of J and K territory in 1947 and in March 1963 she “gifted” over 5,180 sq. km of it to China. Why nobody, not even separatists, made it a big issue as Pakistan had no right to cede J and K territory to any other country? Nobody has any answer but parliamentarians insist that India should continue dialogue with them. There is no international dimension to it even though it has become bi-lateral issue after Shimla Agreement. When there is no consensus even on agenda, how can a dialogue start, even if India overlooks insults heaped on her ministers and continues to bleed through terror strikes?Yes, bloodshed in Kashmir must end. Why politicians, when out of power, tend to vitiate the already surcharged atmosphere by raking up issues that fuel fire. You asked, “Why is psyche of Kashmir so deeply hurt and so deeply mollified that they are prepared to take this destructive path”? Who else is better placed than you to answer this question? Surprisingly, like all other “worried” you didn’t counsel the teenaged rioters or Patharbaaz to stop storming security camps, snatching rifles and attacking convoys and let their elders explore ways to assuage their “hurt psyche”.
Glad that you picked up from the speech of Shamsher Singh and lend support to “Jammuiyat” and “Ladakhiyat,” two strong stakeholders in Kashmir issue which always played its matured and tranquil role in every situation despite being leaderless.
With regards.
