Maharaja Hari Singh: Democrat and Patriot in the Context of Nehru’s Valley-Centric Politics

Sunil Sharma
The historical narrative of Jammu and Kashmir is frequently centered on Jawaharlal Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah. Maharaja Hari Singh, the final Dogra ruler, is often depicted as a reluctant monarch resistant to democratic change. However, this perspective, as seen in works of many renowned scholars overlooks evidence of Hari Singh’s patriotism and progressive outlook. Prior to independence, he advocated for Indian unity, implemented democratic institutions, and introduced reforms uncommon among princely states. His vision encompassed all regions of Jammu and Kashmir, including Jammu, Kashmir, Ladakh, and Gilgit-Baltistan. The primary obstacle to this vision was Nehru’s mistrust, influenced by personal animosity and a focus on the Kashmir Valley.
At the First Round Table Conference in London in 1930, when many princes tried to isolate themselves from the Indian national movement, Hari Singh made a clear stand. “I have never disguised from my friends my warm support of the idea of an All-India Federation,” he declared. He also acknowledged that while the princes owed loyalty to the British Crown, they also had “full sympathy for the aspirations of their motherland for an equal and honourable place in the comity of nations.” In contrast to it, many other princely leaders focused on maintaining their ties to the British and protecting their autonomy, expressing concerns over losing power in a unified India. For example, a representative from Hyderabad remarked, “Our first duty is to protect the rights and privileges enjoyed by our state under British rule.” These were not the words of separatists, but of a monarch who saw his future tied to India’s destiny.
While Hari singh was a monarch but his policies we no less democratic. In 1934, he established the Praja Sabha, an elected legislative assembly that provided political parties and citizens with a platform for participation in governance. Although its powers were limited, this institution represented a significant move toward participatory politics. Also, Maharaja Hari Singh enacted legislation against child marriage, promoted compulsory primary education, and introduced peasant welfare reforms. While many princely rulers were against such changes, he promoted freeeedom of expression by modifying the press rules and stood at the frontfoot for modernization of his people. These reforms indicate an effort to transition Jammu and Kashmir toward responsible governance while maintaining stability in a complex and diverse region.
Yet, despite these clear signals of patriotism and reformist nature Jawaharlal Nehru never trusted him. The distrust was rooted more in personal biases rather than in policies. In 1946, during the Quit Kashmir agitation led by Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference, Nehru entered the state against the Maharaja’s orders. Treating him as an ordinary lawbreaker, Hari Singh’s government had him arrested. For Nehru, this was an unpardonable slight. He never forgave the Maharaja for denying him the special status he accorded himself as India’s national leader. From that moment, Nehru’s politics in Jammu and Kashmir were colored by this bitterness. However, it is important to consider Nehru’s stated constitutional concerns, which were centered around ensuring a secular and democratic framework within a newly independent India. He painted the Maharaja’s rule as a potential barrier to such principles in a historically diverse and culturally rich region like Jammu and Kashmir.
Instead of acknowledging Maharaja Hari Singh as a rightful custodian of Jammu & Kashmir, Jawaharlal Nehru entrusted Sheikh Abdullah as the “voice of Kashmir”. Nehru’s loyalty to Abdullah not only undermined Maharaja’s rightful authority, but subdued the security concerns at large. In 1947, Nehru put conditions when Hari Singh already showed his interest to join India. The conditions were that Sheikh Abdullah to be released from prison and given power. Practically, India’s national interests were overshadowed by Nehru’s personal friendship with Abdullah and his grudge for Maharaja.
In other princely states like Junagadh and Hyderabad, the decision regarding joining India was resolved quickly. But Jammu and Kashmir issue was left unsettled, until Pakistan’s tribal invasion in 1947 led to a hurried decision of joining India officially. But Maharaja always wanted to join India. In his letter to Lord Mountbatten, Maharaja Hari Singh’s intent is clear: “I have no option but to ask for help from the Indian Dominion. I have accordingly decided to accede to the Dominion of India.”
The common narrative that show Maharaja Hari Singh as a reluctant and confused ruler is misleading. There are ample evidences which prove that he supported India early. His stance on accession is not merely a survival strategy, but encapsulates the vision of Jammu and Kashmir to grow as a part of India. This uncomplicated accession is transformed into a complex political problem because of Nehru’s mistrust and Abdullah’s ambitions which delayed this process. Hari Singh’s vision for Jammu and Kashmir was larger than Kashmir valley. It was plural and multiregional. His political ambitions embraced Jammu’s Dogra, Ladakh’s Buddhists, and people of Gilgit-Baltistan, along with Kashmir valley. One resident of Ladakh said in a local meeting, “The Maharaja’s initiatives have always considered our cultural heritage alongside the political necessities.” In the same way, a community leader from Gilgit-Baltistan remarked, ‘Hari Singh’s reforms paved the way for our voice to be heard in the political discourse.’ But for Nehru, idea of Jammu and Kashmir was narrowed to Kashmir valley and Sheikh Abdullah. By reducing a complicated and diverse region to a single person and single region, Nehru weakened India’s long term position and created divisions that still trouble us today.
It is time that history should correct itself and rewrite the narrative which give Maharaja Hari Singh the respect he deserves. Maharaja Hari Singh deserved to be remembered as a patriot and democrat who clearly wants to join India, not as an obstacle. His legacy lies in what he truly cherish, Indian unity and a more democratic governance within his state. On the other hand, Nehru’s personal hostility and valley centric approach turned a uncomplicated accession into a political crisis.
When ongoing discussions regarding Jammu and Kashmir’s history and future is underway, it should include recognition of Hari Singh’s contribution. India’s strength has historically being reinforced when it respects all regions and all communities equally. Maharaja Hari Singh exemplified this approach and we should acknowledge him for his unwavering intent in India’s nation building.
(The author is the Leader of the Opposition and a Member of the Legislative Assembly in Jammu and Kashmir)