The Kashmir problem, better call it Kashmir crisis, was actually born when accession document was signed by the Maharaja and the Indian troops chased the tribal marauders from the areas under their storm. The problem assumed an international dimension when Pandit Nehru referred the dispute to the United Nations. Kashmir problem did not begin with Dr Mukerjee's death nor did it take birth when he defied the ban on entry into the borders of the state without travel documents. 

The Praja Parishad movement deserves a re-assessment and revaluation. To dub it as communal is just a cliched statement. In his communications to the chief ministers, Pandit Nehru labelled the movement as communal thereby lending credence to what National Conference leaders had said about the motivations of the movement. He had rightly sensed that the target of the movement was not only Sheikh Abdullah but his own positions on Kashmir. To condemn the movement he characterized it 'a folly or mischief' and ultimately tarred it as communal. If viewed from an objective perspective the Nehruvian position vis-a-vis the Praja Parishad movement had no cogent justification. 

The agitators of the movement directly attacked the Delhi Agreement which reiterated the provisions of the Article 370 as enshrined in the Indian Constitution. They chanted pro-India slogans with the portraits of the President of India up in their hands and vociferously voiced their opposition to the two constitutions, two flags and two heads of state in one country. If Sheikh Abdullah as a Muslim was seeking safe-guards for the Muslims of Kashmir who, to him, were a quam (nation), there was absolutely no wrong if Hindus sought their safe-guards in the full integration of the state with the Union of India. 'Full autonomy' as demanded by the Sheikh created many a constitutional anomaly and any segment of the state's population had an inherent right to question and oppose their constitutional validity. Sheikh Abdullah projected 'full autonomy' as a panacea for protection of its identity and urge to shape itself as per its inherent genius. But the question is—who gave him the right to project the demand on behalf of the varied ethno-religious and ethno-cultural groups inhabiting the state? Autonomy was never a public issue. It was never thoroughly discussed and cogently spelt out. It was a 'Muslim demand' and Sheikh Abdullah never recognised the state as a whole as a league of nations. 

It is of utmost significance to understand that the Praja movement rightly pointed out that the 'full autonomy' demand was never based on any set of proposals for re-structuring centre-state relations. Its main thrust was to push out India from the state and its constitutional organisation. The essential motivation for it was the over-riding concept of 'Muslim domination'. It was paradoxical for Sheikh Abdullah and his supporters to postulate that the Hindu minorities were safe in an autonomous state of Jammu and Kashmir, but the Muslims of the state were not presumed to be secure in secular India. Even if Sheikh Abdullah was not happy with the developments in India as reflected by the Praja Parishad movement and its ideology, he could have fought it without taking a resort to Muslim communalism. His assumption that Hindus communalism was on ascendancy in India was highly subjective. 

What were the forces that compelled Sheikh Abdullah to ditto the Maharaja's decision of acceding to India need a fresh appraisal. Secular ideology was adopted to fortify the struggle against the Hindu monarchby and when issues were finally to be settled, there was equivocation, dithering and back-tracking of this revealing the real face. The Delhi Agreement was an attempt to patch up the differences that had cropped up from the day the J&K State was included in the Article I of the Indian Constitution. 

It is relevant to point out that the Delhi Agreement was never implemented. The committee that was appointed to draft the J&K Constitution was never directed to include the provisions of the Delhi Agreement. Instead it was advised to subject it to a fresh revision. Dr JN Bhan and Mirza Afzal Beg prepared two drafts which if made public would have set India aflame. This is what Mir Qasim writes in his autobiography in Urdu.

Previous Article

Next Article