[Reader-list] Kashmir Dispute, The Myth-IV

[Pawan Durani]

*Kashmir** Dispute, The Myth-IV*

*By Dr. M.K. Teng***

Pakistan resorted to the distortion of the history of the transfer of power
in India, to justify its claim on Jammu and Kashmir. Inside Jammu and
Kashmir the National Conference leaders who ruled the State for decades
after its accession to India, resorted to the distortion of the history of
the accession of the State to India, to legitimize their claim to a Muslim
State of Jammu and Kashmir inside India but independent of the Indian Union
and its political organisation. Not only that. The Muslim separatists
forces, which dominated the political scene in the State after the
disintegration of the National Conference in 1953, also resorted to the
fossilization of the facts of the accession of the State to India.
Interestingly, the entire process of the distortion of the history of the
accession of the State, spread over decades of Indian freedom assumed varied
expressives from time to time.

Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah who headed the Interim Government instituted in
March 1948, disclaimed the Instrument of Accession executed by Hari Singh,
as merely the Kagzi Ilhaq' or "paper Accession" and claimed that the "real
accession of the state to India" would be accomplished by the people of the
State, more precisely the Muslim majority of the people of the State. While
the Constitution of India was on the anvil and the issue of the
constitutional provisions for the States came up for the consideration for
the Constituent Assembly of India, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah claimed that the
National Conference had endorsed the accession of the State to India on the
condition that the claim the people of the state had to a separate freedom
was recognised by India and the leadership of the National Conference had
been assured by the Indian leaders that the people of Jammu and Kashmir
would be reserved the right to constitute Jammu and Kashmir into an
autonomous political organisation, independent of the Indian constitutional
organisation.

Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and other National Conference leaders, claimed that
they had been assured that Jammu and Kashmir would not be integrated in the
constitutional organisaion of India and the assurances were incorporated in
the Instrument of Accession. They stressed that they had agreed to the
accede to India on the specific condition that the Muslim identity of the
State would form the basis of its political organisation.

In his inaugural address to the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and
Kashmirconvened in 1951, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah who was the Prime
Minister of the
Interim Government of the State, claimed that the Constituent Assembly was
vested with the plenary powers, drawn from the people of the State and
independent of the Constitution of India. He claimed that the Constituent
Assembly was vested with the powers to opt out of India and assume
independence or join the Muslim state of Pakistan.

Fifty years later the claims Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah made in the
Constituent Assembly were echoed in the first Round Table Conference,
convened by the Government of India in 2006, to reach a consensus on a
future settlement of the Kashmir dispute.

Mr Muzaffar Hussain Beg, represented the People Democratic Party in the
Round Table Conference which was a constituent of the coalition government
in the State, headed by the Congress Party. Beg claimed, that the Instrument
of Accession was a treaty between two independent states, the Dominion of
India and the Jammu and Kashmir State and the Constituent Assembly was a
sovereign authority, independent powers inherent in its sovereignty.

The Government of India made no efforts to put the record straight.
Frightened at the prospect of losing the support of the National Conference
the Indian leaders did not question the veracity of the claims the
Conference leaders made. Indeed, they depended upon the support of the
National Conference to win the plebiscite which the United Nations
Organisation was hectically preparing to hold in the State. The Indian
leaders, overwhelmed by their own sense of self-righteousness, helped
overtly and covertly in the falsification of the history of the integration
of the Princely States with India and the accession of Jammu and
Kashmirwith the Indian Dominion in 1947. Many of them went as far as
to link the
unity of India with the reassertion of the subnational identity of Jammu and
Kashmir, which the Muslim demand for separate freedom for the Muslim
symbolised.

The Indian Independence Act of 1947, laid down separate procedures for the
transfers of power in the British India and the Indian Princely States. The
Princely States were left out of the partition plan, which divided the
British Indian provinces and envisaged the creation of the Muslim state of
Pakistan. In respect of the Princely States, the Indian Independence Act,
envisaged the lapse of the paramountcy - the power which the British Crown
exercised over the Indian States. The British Government clarified its stand
on the future disposition of the States in the British Parliament during the
debate on the Indian Independence Bill. It categorically stated that the
lapse of the Paramountcy would not enable the Princes to acquire Dominion
status or assume independence.

The British Government made it clear that the reversion of the Paramountcy
to the rulers of the States would inevitably lead to mutually accepted
agreements between the Dominions and the Princely States which would involve
their accession. The Indian Independence Act did not envisage in the
procedure the accession of States. The Nawab of Bhopal approached the
Diplomatic Mission of the United States of America in India to seek the
recognition of the Independence of his state. The American Government
snubbed the Nawab and refused to countenance any proposals for the
independence of the Princely States in India. It was left to be formulated
by the two Dominions of India and Pakistan.

The Political Department of the British Government of India was divided into
two separate Political Departments – the Political Department of Pakistan to
deal with the Indian Princely States. The Political Department of India was
put in charge of Sardar Vallabhai Patel and the Political Department of
Pakistan was put in charge of Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar. The procedure for
the accession of the States to the two Dominions was evolved separately by
their respective Political Departments.

The Muslim League however, insisted upon the independence of the Princely
States in order to enable the Muslim ruled states to remain out of India.
The Muslim League aimed to Balkanise the Princely States and place the state
of Pakistan in a position which provided it a way to forge an alliance with
them. The Indian States spread over more than one-third of the territory of
India constituted more than one fourth of the Indian population. Some of the
Muslim ruled Princely States were largest among the Princely States of
Indiaand several of them were fabulously rich.

The claim Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah made in his inaugural speech to the
Constituent Assembly of the State that the States had the option to assume
independence was a reiteration of the stand the Muslim League had taken on
the future disposition of the states following the lapse of the Paramountcy.
The lapse of the Paramountcy did not underline the independence of the
States. It did not envisage the reversion of any plenary powers to the
Princes or the people of the states as a consequence of the dissolution of
the Paramountcy. The states were not independent when they were integrated
in the British Empire in India. They did not acquire independence when they
were liberated from the British Empire 1947. They were not vested with any
inherent powers to claim independence to which Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah
referred to in his inaugural address to the Constituent Assembly.

The convocation of the Constituent Assemblies in the States was provided for
in the stipulations of the Instrument of Accession that the Princely States
acceding to India, executed. The Instrument of Accession devised by the
States Department of Pakistan for the accession of the States to that
country did not envisage provisions pertaining to the convocation of the
Constituent Assembly. The power to convene separate Constituent Assemblies
was reserved for all the major states the Union of the States, which acceded
to India.

The Jammu and Kashmir State was no exception. In fact, Constituent
Assemblies were convened, in the states of Cochin and Mysore and the State
Union of Saurashtra, shortly after their accession to the Indian Dominion.

The Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was a creature of the
Instrument of Accession. It exercised powers which were drawn from the state
of India and its sovereign authority. It did not assess any powers to revoke
the accession of the State to India to bring about the accession of the
State to Pakistan or opt for its independence, as Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah
in his inaugural address to the Constituent Assembly claimed or as Mr
Muzaffar Hussain Beg claimed in the Round Table Conference.

The truth of what happened during those fateful days of October 1947, when
the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India was accomplished was concealed
by a irredentist campaign of disinformation which was launched to cover the
acts of cowardice and betrayal, subterfuge and surrender which went into the
making of the Kashmir dispute.

The National Conference leaders, were at no stage, brought in to endorse the
accession of the State to India. No one among them was required to sign or
countersign the accession and none of them signed or countesigned the
Instrument of Accession, executed by Maharaja Hari Singh. The Indian
Independence Act, an Act of the British Parliament, which laid down the
procedure for the transfer of power in India, did not recognize the right of
self-determination of either the people of the British India or the people
of the States.

The transfer of power was based on an agreement among the Congress, the
Muslim League and the British. The British and the Muslim League stubbornly
refused to recognise the right of the people of the British India and right
of the people of the Princely State to determine the future of the British
India or the Indian states. The Muslim League and the British insisted upon
the lapse of the Paramountcy and its reversion to the rulers of the States.
Accession of the States was not subject to any conditions and the Instrument
of Accession underlined an irreversible process the British provided for the
dissolution of the empire in India.

No assurance was given to the National Conference leaders that the
Constituent Assembly of the State would be vested with plenary powers or
powers to ratify the accession of the State to India, revoke it opt for its
independence or its accession to Pakistan. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and the
other National Conference leaders did not seek the exclusion of the State
from the Indian political organization as a condition for the accession of
the state to India. Nor did the Indian leaders give any assurance to them
that the Jammu and Kashmir would be reconstituted into an independent
political organisation, which would represent its Muslim identity.



**Note: The articles in this series are based upon the documentary sources
in the Archives of India, Archives of Jammu and Kashmir, All India States
Peoples Conference Papers, Nehru Memorial Museum; Contemporary Newspaper
Files and Interviews) * *-To be continued*
**
*Source: Kashmir Sentinel*