By Prof. Hari Om

A close scrutiny of the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly reveals that the issues concerning Jammu and Kashmir were discussed twice-first on May 27, 1947, and finally on October 17, 1949. It also shows that the focus on this State on May 27 was far more sharp than what it was on October 17 despite the fact that the issue under discussion was highly sensitive and controversial and that the subjects discussed were two and not just one. Hence, it would be only prudent to ignore what transpired during the rather brief and smooth discussion on Article 370 as the matter is too well known and reflect on the May 27 less known issue which kept the Constituent Assembly really engrossed in tortuous discussions and squabbles for hours together. Such an exercise would help our decision-makers to understand the reasons behind the 53-year-old complaint of the people of Jammu and Ladakh (which are far ahead of the Valley in terms of population and land area) that they have no place whatsoever in the country’s polity and that it is New Delhi which is squarely responsible for their socio-cultural and politico-economic degeneration and under-development. This may also enable them to work out a policy that treats all the three linguistically, ethnically, geographically and historically distinct regions of the State (Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh) equally; harmonises inter-regional relations; and restrict the area of contention and strife to the Kashmir valley.

What provoked a sort of furore in the Constituent Assembly on May 27? It was the motion moved by Gopalaswami Ayyanagar, then controlling the "Ministry of Kashmir Affairs", to the effect that "notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 4 (of the Schedule to the Constituent Assembly Rules), all the seats in the Assembly allotted to the State of Kashmir may be filled by the Ruler of Kashmir on the advice of his Prime Minister".

It needs to be noted that several objections had been raised against this official motion. However, the one which dumb-founded and irritated some of the members most was the ommission of Jammu from the nomenclature of the State, which came into being on March 16, 1846, when the rule of Jammu was extended to Kashmir as a result of the Treaty of Amritsar between Gulab Singh, the ruler of Jammu, and British Government. Prominent among those who vehemently opposed the motion were Pandit Lakshmi Kant Maitra (West Bengal) and Prof KT Shah (Bihar). Prof Shah possessed first-hand knowledge about the State and its people as well as the kind of political upheavals it had been witnessing since 1931. The reason: he remained associated with the affairs of this princely state for 15 long years and was its Planning Advisor before October 1947. He was also aware of the shape things would assume in Jammu and Kashmir in the days to come as he had a 15-day-long inter-action with the National Conference chief Sheikh Abdullah, who had gone all the way from Srinagar to Bombay to discuss with him his "New Kashmir draft".

While Pandit Maitra put question after question to know "if the word ‘Kashmir’ includes or means both Jammu and Kashmir". Prof Shah moved an amendment to the motion and made a fervent appeal to the Constituent Assembly to ensure that the words "Jammu and" also figure before the word "Kashmir where-ever it occurs".

Moving the amendment Prof Shah said :".. There is some significance in this matter, which makes it more than ever necessary that you (Ayyangar) should not omit the other part (Jammu), and, if one may say so, the first part of the title of that ancient State. By calling it the State of Kashmir only you are perpetuating an error.. May I ask... if we have made a mistake in the first instance, if we have been carried away by the importance of one sect of the State, by the importance of the personages (the Sheikh and his colleagues) connected with that part of the State, is that any reason why we should forget the other and no less important part of the State and in this formal document continue to perpetuate the mistake and speak only of Kashmir, when we really mean Jammu and Kashmir? It is a fact not denied by the mover that is the correct name of the State".

Prof Shah also told the Constituent Assembly that the relations between Kashmir and Jammu were not very cordial. To make his point more clear he said : "Those at any rate who remember the campaign of the present Prime Minister (Sheikh Abdullah) of the State in connection with (the 1946) ‘Quit Kashmir’ (Quit Kashmir movement was launched to rid the Valley of all the Jammu Dogras and establish Kashmirs’ rule) will realise that in the sequence of events that have happened, it is liable, if you describe it in this manner, to be gravely misunderstood where-ever such nomenclature is allowed to be used; and our public records will be disfigured to that extent. The State of Jammu and Kashmir correctly described as Jammu and Kashmir because, so to say, there are two States in one kingdom, just as Scotland and England were two States under the first of the Stuarts. The king was the King James the Sixth of Scotland and King James the first of England. There were two Crowns worn by one person. In regard to the State of Jammu and Kashmir until about the communal rising in 1931, it was for all practical administrative purposes actually divided into two provinces more or less distinct, though under the same ruler.."

But more than that, Prof Shah cautioned the Constituent Assembly that "the matter of nomenclature is not merely a matter of verbal emendation that it has behind it a significance, a significance, in the sequence of events, not confined only to this House or to this country. It has repercussions outside this country. Therefore, we must be careful in every word that we use, so that our expression, our nomenclature, our whole wording is in conformity with the situation and the correct facts".

In reply to Pandit Maitra, Ayyangar said : "Kashmir means Jammu and Kashmir". He also justified his motion, saying "in the Draft Constitution, the Schedule mentions the State of Kashmir" and "in the list that is attached to the Constituency Assembly Rules, it is already described as Kashmir". In effect, he requested the members not to make this an issue and "let this description of the State as Kashmir stand, because if you change it, we will have to change other things which are already in our Statutes and Rules". In other words, Ayyangar expressed his unwillingness to insert the words "Jammu and" before the word "Kashmir" for reasons which really failed to carry any conviction with Pandit Maitra and Prof Shah. This is evident from the questions they raised in response to the lengthy statement of Ayyangar on the nomenclature of the State.

Convinced that Ayyangar would not be in a position to take along Pandit Maitra and Prof Shah, Prime Minister Nehru took the stage. He defended Ayyangar and said that his stand was "correct". Not only this, he said that "I have been connected with Kashmir in many ways, and, in a sense, I belong to Kashmir more particularly to any part of India. I have been connected with the fight for freedom in Kashmir.. And so, if I venture to say anything in this House, I do so with far greater authority than Prof Shah can presume to have on the subject.. "After saying so, he made a very lengthy statement to counter the arguments of Prof Shah and in praise of Sheikh Abdullah and his Valley-based National Conference and their anti-Jammu and anti-Dogras crusade. At the same time, he suggested "a small change in the wording of the motion" with a view to "removing" what he called "a slight confusion in people’s mind". And what he actually suggested was that the "State be described as Kashmir State, and then putting within brackets, the words otherwise known as the State of Kashmir and Jammu".

It needs to be recalled that the State at no point of time during 1846-1949 was styled as the "State of Kashmir and Jammu". It was always known as the State of Jammu and Kashmir, with Jammu as its permanent capital. It should also be underlined that the practice of moving the State Secretariat from Jammu to Srinagar and back was started during the time of Maharaja Ranbir Singh (1857-1885) for reasons political, the most noteworthy being the British design to cause anti-maharaja stir in the Valley and establish their foothold there and in and around Gilgit in order to check the Russian activities across the border.

Anyway, as expected, Prime Minister Nehru’s formula did not click. Nor did it deter Prof Shah in his efforts to enlist the support of the Constituent Assembly in favour of his amendment. With the result, the deadlock continued. Ultimately, Ayyangar moved an amendment to his own motion and suggested that the name of the State be read as the "State of Kashmir (otherwise known as the State of Jammu and Kashmir). The Constituent Assembly adopted the amended motion. Thus, Jammu, which had ruled over Kashmir for 101 years, found space in the nomenclature of the State though within brackets. All this happened primarily because of the efforts put in by the unyielding Prof Shah, with Pandit Maitra extending to the former his unflinching cooperation. Had they, like other members of the Constituency Assembly, remained mum or toed the official line, Jammu would have been totally disappeared from the nomenclature of the State.

All this only serves to demonstrate that the charge of the people of Jammu and Ladakh against New Delhi is well-founded. In fact, there are umpteen instances which show that the Centre has never given a fair treatment to these two regions and it has all along allowed itself to be influenced by the Valley leadership. The transfer of political power from Jammu to Kashmir in October 1947 through undemocratic means, the decision of the Union government to deprive Jammu of its age-old capital status and make Srinagar the capital of the State, the incorporation of Article 370 in the Indian Constitution at the behest of Sheikh Abdullah, the 1952 Nehru-Sheikh Abdullah negotiations over the State’s political future, the 1975 Indira-Sheikh Abdullah accord envisaging an autonomous status for the State, the 1986 Rajiv-Farooq accord and the ongoing efforts to cultivate terrorist and separatist outfits like Hizb-ul-Mujahideen or the pro-quasi-independence National Conference which in no way represents the general will are some of them. Unfortunately, the attitude of the Valley leadership to Jammu and Ladakh has been equally cold. Rather, it has been humiliating in the sense that it has rendered them ineffective for all practical purposes in the State’s political and economic process.