Reign of Confusion

Reign of Confusion:
KASHMIR after ACCESSION 1947-1953
- A Documentary Study -
Dr Satish Ganjoo
Before going through this documentary study, a brief biographical sketch of Shaikh Abdullah is must. Born at Soura [Srinagar] in 1905, he got M Sc in Chemistry from Aligarh Muslim University and was appointed as a teacher in the Government State High School, Srinagar. But his ambitions were high and started his political career in 1931 under the influence of some local Muslim leaders. He later resigned from government service and joined active politics which resulted his first short imprisonment in 1933. Soon after he went to Lahore in 1934 to establish contacts with Indian national leaders. Due to his suspicious activities, State government banned his entry into Jammu and Kashmir. However the ban was later cancelled and he took part in the State Praja Sabha elections. In 1938, he was again arrested and later released. These political arrests consolidated his position in Kashmir and he became the leader of the masses.

Due to his close relations with the Indian leaders, Shaikh Abdullah was elected Vice President of the All India States Peoples’ Conference and later as its President. In 1943, he started “Quit Kashmir” movement against the Dogra rule and Maharaja. This resulted his arrest and prosecution for sedition. However, he was released in 1947, when Pakistan infiltrated in the State. By this time, he had spent more than 9 years in prison. He was immediately sent to attend the UN meeting as a member of Indian delegation. This reveals the faith and confidence of Indian leadership on him. He was instrumental in managing the Kashmir’s accession to Indian Union because very well aware of the fact that his interests will be safe in a soft state like India and Pakistan will prove a failure. He had a political vision and mass-control ability.

In December 1947, Shaikh Abdullah assumed power as Head of the Emergency Administration and later on as Prime Minister of the Jammu and Kashmir State. He worked hard for the emancipation of Kashmiri Muslims and became their saviour. Kashmiri Pandits were once again pushed back to notorious Afghan era but in a polite way. Their ‘jagirs’ were abolished, higher institutions of learning and government jobs were closed for them and they were made to suffer for nothing. He used to advise his associates that while making a choice between a Kashmiri Pandit and dreadly cobra, kill the Pandit first. Their roots were silently being cut off and every effort was made to destroy their identity. This mission of Shaikh Abdullah continued till 1953, when he was dismissed and arrested for the anti-national activities.

Shaikh Abdullah was released from jail in 1958, but detained again after three months and prosecuted under KASHMIR CONSPIRACY CASE. However the case was withdrawn in 1964 under political pressure. But he was arrested again in May 1965 for his subversive activities and released in January 1968. His actions and activities were always suspicious with the result a ban was imposed on him to enter into the State in January 1971, which was lifted in June 1972. He once again assumed the power in the State as Chief Minister in 1976. Throughout his political career, he remained in detention for more than 18 years.

During 1953 to 1975, Shaikh Abdullah labeled India as an expansionist and colonial power trying to subjugate Kashmir. He considered the accession of Kashmir with India as his worst blunder and demanded the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. He also advocated to settle the Kashmir issue by a free and fair plebiscite, and unconditional withdrawal of the Indian troops. But in 1976, he once again switched over to the Indian nationalism and secularism. The slogans of plebiscite, self-determination, independent Kashmir, creation of Shaikhdom and buffer status all evaporated in air. This was his hypocrisy and dictatorial behavior, because of which not only India but Kashmiri Pandits also suffered tremendously.

Now coming to the main topic, before the accession of Jammu and Kashmir State to Indian Union, Shaikh Abdullah was leading the Muslim predominated Kashmir along secular and not communal path because he was aware of the fact that his family interests will be safe only and only in India. The “two-nation” theory of Jinnah was vitiating the political atmosphere in sub-continent and Muslim League, with the blessings of British Imperialism, was forging the dream of separate Muslim nation. This communal party made a number of secret and hectic attempts to win over the Shaikh to its ideology. Jinnah personally visited Kashmir in 1945 for the same obvious purpose. But because of the tremendous opposition by the people of State, he felt irritated and went back with the following message to the Muslims of Kashmir:

As I said at the moment I reached Jammu, it is not the policy of the Muslim League to interfere with the internal administration of this State or the grave and serious issues that face the Maharaja and his Government, as between him and his people, but we are certainly very deeply concerned with the welfare of the Mussalmans in the State, and I must say that even a casual visitor cannot but be shocked to see the condition of the people in this State, even in matters of their elementary needs and necessities. Sir B.N. Rao has just taken charge as the Prime Minister of the State, and now the people are looking up to him and expecting that he will take effective measures for their betterment…… As regards the Mussalmans, as I said, we are vitally concerned with their welfare, but I regret that although Sheikh Abdullah and his party and the Muslim Conference discussed matters with me in Delhi and in Lahore before my arrival here and were good enough to accord me a great reception, and were anxious that I should hear both sides and bring about a settlement, when I, after careful consideration, suggested that the Mussalmans should organize themselves under one flag and on one platform, not only my advice was not acceptable to Sheikh Abdullah but, as is his habit, which has become a second nature with him, he indulged in all sorts of language of a most offensive and vituperative character in attacking me. My advice to the Mussalmans is that the differences can only be resolved by argument, discussion, exchange of views, and reason and not by goondaism and one thing that I must draw the attention of Kashmir Government about is that goondaism must be put down at any cost, and there should be constitutional liberty of speech and freedom of thought, which is the elementary right of every citizen under any civilized form of Government.”

This message of Jinnah makes it clear that Shaikh Abdullah always played the double game. He was only concerned for his own interests which were safe in secular and democratic India. So when Indian National Congress passed through the phase of “Quit India” movement and the resultant incarceration of senior leaders like Gandhi and Nehru, Shaikh Abdullah continued organizing and consolidating the National Conference. Sensing that Indian freedom was round the corner, he played the master stroke by raising the slogan of “Quit Kashmir” against the Dogra regime. A resolution was passed by the Working Committee of National Conference on February 10, 1946 which read: The working Committee of the Jammu and Kashmir National Conference have taken into consideration the speech made by the Viceroy of India in the Princes' Chamber on the17th January, 1946 along with the declaration made by the Chancellor of the Chamber on behalf of the Princes regarding constitutional advancement in the States. After fully examining the salient points in both the speeches, the Working Committee have come to the following conclusions:

That the advice tendered by the Crown Representative to the Princes regarding the steps to be taken in making the administration of these States progressive did not amount to anything progressive. In fact it lost all its significance when he (Viceroy), made such progress conditional on the maintenance of the treaties and the consent of the Princes. These treaties and engagements which are outdated, reactionary and questionable have always stood and will always stand in the way of the States People's progress and to think that the Rulers will give up their privileged positions that they enjoy under them at their sweet will is nothing but wishful thinking. The National Conference has at several occasions made it clear that these treaties have been made in times and under circumstances, which do not obtain now and have been framed without seeking the consent of the States people. Under such circumstances no treaties or engagements which act as a dividing wall between their progress and that of their brethren in British India, can be binding on the people.”

Shaikh Abdullah also send a telegram to Cabinet Mission [1946] to strengthen his claim, “As President, All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference representing all communities and classes of people in-habiting Jammu and Kashmir State I welcome your visit to our state and hope that it will usher in new era of freedom both political and economic for four million state people. As Mission is at moment reviewing relationship of Princes with the Paramount Power with reference to treaty rights we wish to submit that for us in Kashmir re-examination of this relationship is vital matter because hundred years ago in 1846 land and people of Kashmir were sold away to servitude of Dogra House by British for seventy-five lacs of Sikh rupees equivalent to fifty lakhs British Indian rupees. Then Governor of Kashmir resisted transfer, but was finally reduced to subjection with aid of British. Thus sale deed of 1846 misnamed treaty of Amritsar sealed fate of Kashmir masses. We declare to world that this sale deed confers no privileges equivalent to those claimed by states governed by treaty rights. As such case of Kashmir stands on unique footing and people of Kashmir press on Mission their unchallengeable claims to freedom on withdrawal of British power from India. We wish to declare that no sale deed however sacrosanct can condemn more than four million men and women to servitude of an autocrat when will to live under this rule is no longer there. People of Kashmir are determined to mould their own destiny and we appeal to Mission to recognise justice and strength of our cause.”

Perplexed by the activities of Shaikh Abdullah and the agitation launched by the majority of the people in Kashmir, the Maharaja came down with a heavy hand. Shaikh Abdullah and his close associates were arrested. The Dogra ruler made every effort to save his rule and this led to a bitter reaction by the Indian leadership. Nehru, being a Kashmiri Pandit and close to Shaikh Abdullah, came personally to support him and plead his case. But he was not allowed to enter Kashmir by the State authorities and arrested at the frontier town of Kohala. Gandhi also visited Kashmir and tried to resolve the tangle. But he was annoyed by the attitude of the authorities that he declined to be the guest of the Maharaja.

The “Quit Kashmir” movement aiming at the ouster of the Dogra rule and creation of Deemed Shaikhdom continued, when in 1947 India was partioned and a new Muslim-oriented nation of Pakistan carved out by the imperialist and communalist forces. Mountbatten of Burma, the last Viceroy, was retained as the Governor-General of India. Jawaharlal Nehru became the Prime Minister and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel became the Deputy Prime Minister. Over 560 princely states acceded to India, with the states of Junagadh and Hyderabad annexed after military action. Muhammad Ali Jinnah became the Governor-General of Pakistan, and Liaquat Ali Khan became the Prime Minister. Ten states signed instrument of accession with Pakistan: Amb, Bahawalpur, Chitral, Dir, Kalat, Khairpur, Kharan, Lasbela, Makran, and Swat. Three princely states geographically inalienable to Pakistan also joined the Dominion. Saffron Valley was on the main agenda of Muslim League, but the obvious indifference of the people of Kashmir for “two-nation” theory embittered the architects of Pakistan. Even Gandhi had to acknowledge it as something to be extolled.

The study of partition documents clearly reveal that there was absolutely no option for independence as desired by the Maharaja of Kashmir. His desire of independence created a tremendous problem and the people of State, especially Kashmiri Pandits, are still paying for it. They are hounded out of their homes, brutally killed and desolated as if vultures have descended on their homeland. After the partition of India, the Maharaja signed a “Stand-Still” Agreement with Pakistan for the supply of essential commodities. Even then Pakistan began to put undue pressure on Kashmir to accede to that country. The two main routes leading to the Saffron Valley were sealed by Pakistan and supply stopped. But the people of Kashmir were not ready to bow before the imperialist and colonialist designs of Pakistan. In utter frustration and confusion, Pakistan let loose the barbarious bands of tribesmen, the QABAILIES, assisted by Pak regular army, to invade and plunder the Saffron Valley of Kashmir in October 1947. These bandits and highwaymen were provided the moral support, transport, arms and other necessary material by Pakistan. They invaded Kashmir, burnt houses, looted people, raped and abducted women. They indulged in indiscriminate plunder and massacre, sparing neither Hindus nor Muslims, and threatened the gates of Srinagar. This shattered the dream of Maharaja of Kashmir for an “Independent Jammu and Kashmir” as a buffer state in Central Asia bordering China, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. The Government of Jammu and Kashmir was compelled to approach the Indian authorities for immediate military assistance. Hari Singh, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, wrote a detailed letter to Lord Mountbatten, the Governor-General of India, on 26th October, 1946,

My dear Lord Mountbatten, I have to inform your Excellency that a grave emergency has arisen in my State and request immediate assistance of your Government.

As your Excellency is aware the State of Jammu and Kashmir has not acceded to the Dominion of India or to Pakistan. Geographically my State is contiguous to both the Dominions. It has vital economical end cultural links with both of them. Besides my State has a common boundary with the Soviet Republic and China. In their external relations and Dominion of India and Pakistan cannot ignore this fact. I wanted to take time to decide to which Dominion I should accede, or whether it is not in the best interests of both the Dominions and my State to stand independent, of course with friendly and cordial relations with both. I accordingly approached the Dominions of India and Pakistan to enter into Standstill Agreement with my State. The Pakistan Government accepted this Agreement. The Dominion of India desired further discussions with representatives of my Government. l could not arrange this in view of the developments indicated below. In fact the Pakistan Government are operating Post and Telegraph system inside the State. Though we have got a Standstill Agreement with the Pakistan Government permitted steady and increasing strangulation of supplies like food, salt and petrol to my State. Afridis, soldiers in plain clothes, and desperadoes with modern weapons have been allowed to infliter into the State at first in Poonch and then in Sialkot and finally in mass area adjoining Hazara District on the Ramkot side. The result has been that the limited number of troops at the disposal of the State had to be dispersed and thus had to face the enemy at the several points simultaneously, that it has become difficult to stop the wanton destruction of life and property and looting. The Mohara power-house which supplies the electric current to the whole of Srinagar has been burnt. The number of women who have been kidnapped and raped and makes my heart bleed. The wild forces thus let loose on the State are marching on with the aim of capturing Srinagar, the summer Capital of my Government, as first step to over running the whole State. The mass infiltration tribesman drawn from the distant areas of the North-West Frontier coming regularly in motor trucks using Mansehra-Muzaffarabad Road and fully armed with up-to-date weapons cannot possibly be done without the knowing of the Provincial Government of the North-West Frontier Province and the Government of Pakistan. In spite of repeated requests made by my Government no attempt has been made to check these raiders or stop them from coming to my State. The Pakistan Radio even put out a story that a Provisional Government has been set up in Kashmir. The people of my State both the Muslims generally have taken no part at all. With the conditions obtaining at present in my State and to great emergency of the situation as it exists, I have no option but to ask for help from the Indian Dominion. Naturally they cannot send the help asked for by me without my State acceding to the Domination of India. I have accordingly decided to do so and I attach the Instrument of Accession for; acceptance by your Government. The other alternative is to leave my State and my people to fee-booters. On this basis no civilized Government can exist or be maintained. The alternative I will never allow to happen as long as I am Ruler of the State and I have life to defend my country. I may also inform your Excellency's Government that it is my intention at once to set up an interim Government and ask Shaikh Abdullah to carry the responsibilities in this emergency with my Prime Minister. If my State has to be saved immediate assistance must be available at Srinagar. Mr. Menon is fully aware of the situation and he will explain to you, if further explanation is needed. In haste and with kindest regards……”

This letter of Hari Singh is self-explanatory that under what circumstances he was compelled to approach the Government of India. Since a legal basis was first to be established before any military assistance, the Instrument of Accession to the Indian Union was signed on 26th October, 1947:

Whereas the Indian Independence Act, 1947, provides that as from the fifteenth day of August, 1947, there shall be set up an independent Dominion known as INDIA, and that the Government of India Act 1935, shall with such omissions, additions, adaptations and modifications as the Governor General may by order specify, be applicable to the Dominion of India.

And whereas the Government of India Act, 1935, as so adapted by the Governor General, provides that an Indian State may accede to the Dominion of India by an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof.

Now, therefore, I Shriman Inder Mahinder Rajrajeswar Maharajadhiraj Shri Hari Singhji, Jammu & Kashmir Naresh Tatha Tibbet adi Deshadhipati, Ruler of Jammu & Kashmir State, in the exercise of my Sovereignty in and over my said State do hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession and:

1. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India with the intent that the Governor General of India, the Dominion Legislature, the Federal Court and any other Dominion authority established for the purposes of the Dominion shall by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession but subject always to the terms thereof, and for the purposes only of the Dominion, exercise in relation to the State of Jammu & Kashmir (hereinafter referred to as "this State") such functions as may be vested in them by or under the Government of India Act, 1935, as in force in the Dominion of India, on the 15th day of August 1947, (which Act as so in force is hereafter referred to as "the Act').

2. I hereby assume the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given to provisions of the Act within this State so far as they are applicable therein by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession.

3. I accept the matters specified in the schedule hereto as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make law for this State.

4. I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India on the assurance that if an agreement is made between the Governor General and the Ruler of this State whereby any functions in relation to the administration in this State of any law of the Dominion Legislature shall be exercised by the Ruler of the State, then any such agreement shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

5. The terms of this my Instrument of Accession shall not be varied by any amendment of the Act or the Indian Independence Act, 1947, unless such amendment is accepted by me by Instrument supplementary to this Instrument.

6. Nothing in this Instrument shall empower the Dominion Legislature to make any law for this State authorizing the compulsory acquisition of land for any purpose, but I

7. hereby undertake that should the Dominion for the purpose of a Dominion law which applies in this State deem it necessary to acquire any land, I will at their request acquire the land at their expense, or, if the land belongs to me transfer it to them on such terms as may be agreed or, in default of agreement, determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Justice of India.

8. Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit in any way to acceptance of any future constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to enter into agreement with the Government of India under any such future constitution.

9. Nothing in this Instrument affects the continuance of my Sovereignty in and over this State, or, save as provided by or under this Instrument, the exercise of any powers, authority and rights now enjoyed by me as Ruler of this State or the validity of any law at present in force in this State.

10. I hereby declare that I execute this Instrument on behalf of this State and that any reference in this Instrument to me or to the Ruler of the State is to be construed as including a reference to my heirs and successors.
Given under my hand this 26th day of October, nineteen hundred and forty seven.

Hari Singh, Maharajadhiraj of Jammu and Kashmir State.

Acceptance of Instrument of Accession of Jammu and Kashmir State:

I do hereby accept this Instrument of Accession. Dated this twenty seventh day of October, nineteen hundred and forty seven.

Mountbatten of Burma
Governor General of India.”

So far the Instrument of Accession was normal and without any condition. But the personal reply of Mountbatten to Hari Singh, dated 27th October, 1947, mentioned the ill-advised reference to the the people. Perhaps it was a master stroke of British diplomacy.

The letter reads:

Your Highness’s letter dated the 26th October has been delivered to me by Mr V P Menon. In the special circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, My Government has decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. Consistently with their policy that, in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute , the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State it is my Government’s wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir, and her soil cleared of invaders, the question of State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people. Meanwhile, in response to your Highness’s appeal for military aid, action has been taken today to send troops of the Indian army to Kashmir to help your own forcesto defend your territory and to protect the lives, property and honour of your people.

My government and I note with satisfaction that your Highness has decided to invite Shaikh Abdullah to form an Interim Government to work with your Prime Minister .”

Indian troops were sent to repulse the invaders, help the people of Kashmir and rescue them from the clutches of Pakistani bandits. Shaikh Abdullah was released from the jail and placed at the head of the Emergency Administration in the State. His dream was fulfilled, from a school teacher he became the head of a State strategically and politically very important. He began to play his cards very carefully as he was aware of the fact that his interests will be safe in a soft nation like India only and Pakistan will be a failed state. The Indian forces were able to check the advance of invaders and pushed them back. The people of Kashmir also resolved to safeguard their motherland at all costs against the ravages of the brutal raiders. But here politics played its dirty game. To become the great, Jawaharlal Nehru, then Prime Minister of India, unnecessarily referred the Kashmir problem to the Security Council on January 1, 1948. This was a Himalayan blunder and people of Kashmir are paying for it till now. In fact, the accession of Kashmir with Indian Union is as legal as that of other states. If it is disputed, then partition of India and creation of Pakistan is itself disputed. This complaint made by India placed the Jammu & Kashmir problem before the world body. The intention was, however, to ask the world community to acknowledge Pakistani aggression on the people of Jammu and Kashmir and to force Pakistan to vacate its troops from that State. The text of the Indian complaint reads:

Letter Dated 1 January, 1948, from the Representative of India to the Pres
ident of the Security Council (S/628).

The Government of India have instructed me to transmit to you the following telegraphic communication :

1. Under Article 35 of the Charter of the United Nations, any Member may bring any situation whose continuance is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security to the attention of the Security Council. Such a situation now exists between India and Pakistan owing to the aid which invaders, consisting of nationals of Pakistan and of tribesmen from the territory immediately adjoining Pakistan on the north-west, are drawing from Pakistan for operations against Jammu and Kashmir, a State which has acceded to the Dominion of India and is part of India. The circumstances of accession, the activities of the invaders which led the Government of India to take military action against them, and the assistance which the attackers have received and are still receiving from Pakistan are explained later in this memorandum. The Government of India request the Security Council to call upon Pakistan to put an end immediately to the giving of such assistance, which is an act of aggression against India. If Pakistan does not do so, the Government of India may be compelled, in self-defence, to enter Pakistan territory, in order to take military action against the invaders. The matter is, therefore, one of extreme urgency and calls for immediate action by the Security Council for avoiding a breach of international peace.

2. From the middle of September 1947, the Government of India had received reports of the infiltration of armed raiders into the western parts of Jammu Province of the Jammu and Kashmir State; Jammu adjoins West Punjab which is a part of the Dominion of Pakistan. These raiders had done a great deal of damage in that area and taken possession of part of the territory of the State. On 24 October, the Government of India heard of a major raid from the Frontier Province of the Dominion of Pakistan into the Valley of Kashmir. Some two thousand or more fully armed and equipped men came in motor transport, crossed over to the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, sacked the town of Muzaffarabad, killing many people, and proceeded along the Jhelum Valley road towards Srinagar, the summer capital of the Jammu and Kashmir State. Intermediate towns and villages were sacked and burnt, and many people killed. These raiders were stopped by Kashmir State troops near Uri, a town some fifty miles from Srinagar, for some time, but the invaders got around them and burnt the power house at Mahora, which supplied electricity to the whole of Kashmir.

3. The position, on the morning of 26 October, was that these raiders had been held by Kashmir State troops and part of the civil population, who had been armed, at a town called Baramulla. Beyond Baramulla there was no major obstruction up to Srinagar. There was immediate danger of these raiders reaching Srinagar, destroying and massacring large numbers of people, both Hindu and Muslims. The State troops were spread out all over the State and most of them were deployed along the western border of Jammu Province. They had been split up into small isolated groups and were incapable of offering effective resistance to the raiders. Most of the State officials had left the threatened area and the civil administration had ceased to function. All that stood between Srinagar and the fate which had overtaken the places en route followed by the raiders was the determination of the inhabitants of Srinagar, of all communities, and practically without arms, to defend themselves. At this time Srinagar had also a large population of Hindu and Sikh refugees who had fled there from West Punjab owing to communal disturbances in that area. There was little doubt that these refugees would be massacred if the raiders reached Srinagar.

4. Immediately after the raids into the Jammu and Kashmir State commenced, approaches were informally made to the Government of India for the acceptance of the accession of the State to the Indian Dominion. (It might be explained in parenthesis that Jammu and Kashmir form a State whose ruler, prior to the transfer of power by the United Kingdom to the Dominions of India and Pakistan, had been in treaty relations with the British Crown, which controlled its foreign relations and was responsible for its defence. The treaty relations ceased with the transfer of power on 15 August last, and Jammu and Kashmir like other States acquired the right to accede to either Dominion.)

5. Events moved with great rapidity, and the threat to the Valley of Kashmir became grave. On 26 October, the ruler of the State, His Highness Maharaja Sir Hari Singh, appealed urgently to the Government of India for military help. He also requested that the Jammu and Kashmir State should be allowed to accede to the Indian Dominion. An appeal for help was also simultaneously received by the Government of India from the largest popular organisation in Kashmir, the National Conference, headed by Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah. The Conference further strongly supported the request for the State's accession to the Indian Dominion. The Government of India were thus approached not only officially by the State authorities, but also on behalf of the people of Kashmir, both for military aid and for the accession of the State to India.

6. The grave threat to the life and property of innocent people in the Kashmir Valley and to the security of the State of Jammu and Kashmir that had developed as a result of the invasion of the Valley demanded immediate decision by the Government of India on both the requests. It was imperative on account of the emergency that the responsibility for the defence of the Jammu and Kashmir State should be taken over by a government capable of discharging it. But, in order to avoid any possible suggestion that India had utilised the State's immediate peril for her own political advantage, the Government of India made it clear that once the soil of the State had been cleared of the invader and normal conditions restored, its people would be free to decide their future by the recognised democratic method of a plebiscite or referendum which, in order to ensure complete impartiality, might be held under international auspices.

7. The Government of India felt it their duty to respond to the appeal for armed assistance because :
(1) They could not allow a neighbouring and friendly State to be compelled by force to determine either its internal affairs or its external relations;

(2) The accession of the Jammu and Kashmir State to the Dominion of India made India really responsible for the defence of the State.

8. The intervention of the Government of India resulted in saving Srinagar. The raiders were driven back from Baramulla to Uri and are held there by Indian troops. Nearly 19,000 raiders face the Dominion forces in this area. Since operation in the Valley of Kashmir started, pressure by the raiders against the western and south-western border of the Jammu and Kashmir State has been intensified. Exact figures are not available. It is understood, however, that nearly 15,000 raiders are operating against this part of the State. State troops are besieged in certain areas. Incursions by the raiders into the State territory, involving murder, arson, loot, and the abduction of women, continue. The booty is collected and carried over to the tribal areas to serve as an inducement to the further recruitment of tribesmen to the ranks of the raiders. In addition to those actively participating in the raid, tribesmen and others, estimated at 100,000, have been collected in different places in the districts of West Punjab bordering the Jammu and Kashmir State, and many of them are receiving military training under Pakistani nationals, including officers of the Pakistan Army. They are looked after in Pakistan territory, fed, clothed, armed and otherwise equipped, and transported to the territory of the Jammu and Kashmir State with the help, direct and indirect, of Pakistani officials, both military and civil.

9. As already stated, the raiders who entered the Kashmir Valley in October came mainly from the tribal areas to the north-west of Pakistan and, in order to reach Kashmir, passed through Pakistan territory. The raids along the south-west border of the State, which had preceded the invasion of the valley proper, had actually been conducted from Pakistan territory, and Pakistan nationals had taken part in them. This process of transmission across Pakistan territory and utilisation of that territory as a base of operations against the Jammu and Kashmir State continues. Recently, military operations against the western and south-western borders of the State have been intensified, and the attackers consist of nationals of Pakistan as well as tribesmen. These invaders are armed with modern weapons, including mortars and medium machine-guns, wear the battle dress of regular soldiers and, in recent engagements, have fought in regular battle formation and are using the tactics of modern warfare. Man-pack wireless sets are in regular use and even mark V mines have been employed. For their transport the invaders have all along used motor vehicles. They are undoubtedly being trained and to some extent led by regular officers of the Pakistan Army. Their rations and other supplies are obtained from Pakistan territory.

10. These facts point indisputably to the conclusion
(a) That the invaders are allowed transit across Pakistan territory;
(b) That they are allowed to use Pakistan territory as a base of operations;
(c) That they include Pakistan nationals;
(d) That they draw much of their military equipment, transportation, and supplies (including petrol) from Pakistan; and
(e) That Pakistan officers are training, guiding, and otherwise actively helping them.

There is no source other than Pakistan from which they could obtain such quantities of modern military equipment, training or guidance. More than once, the Government of India had asked the Pakistan Government to deny to the invaders facilities which constitute an act of aggression and hostility against India, but without any response. The last occasion on which this request was made was on 22 December, when the Prime Minister of India handed over personally to the Prime Minister of Pakistan a letter in which the various forms of aid given by Pakistan to the invaders were briefly recounted and the Government of Pakistan were asked to put an end to such aid promptly; no reply to this letter has yet been received in spite of a telegraphic reminder sent on 26 December.

11. It should be clear from the foregoing recital that the Government of Pakistan are unwilling to stop the assistance in material and men which the invaders are receiving from Pakistan territory and from Pakistan nationals, including Pakistan Government personnel, both military and civil. This attitude is not only un-neutral, but constitutes active aggression against India, of which the State of Jammu and Kashmir forms a part.

12. The Government of India have exerted persuasion and exercised patience to bring about a change in the attitude of Pakistan. But they have failed, and are in consequence confronted with a situation in which their defence of the Jammu and Kashmir State is hampered and their measures to drive the invaders from the territory of the State are greatly impeded by the support which the raiders derive from Pakistan. The invaders are still on the soil of Jammu and Kashmir and the inhabitants of the State are exposed to all the atrocities of which a barbarous foe is capable. The presence, in large number of invaders in those portions of Pakistan territory which adjoin parts of Indian territory other than the Jammu and Kashmir State is a menace to the rest of India. Indefinite continuance of the present operations prolongs the agony of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, is a drain on India's resources and a constant threat to the maintenance of peace between India and Pakistan The Government of India have no option, therefore, but to take more effective military action in order to rid the Jammu and Kashmir State of the invader.

13. In order that the objective of expelling the invader from Indian territory and preventing him from launching fresh attacks should be quickly achieved, Indian troops would have to enter Pakistan territory; only thus could the invader be denied the use of bases and cut off from his sources of supplies and reinforcements in Pakistan. Since the aid which the invaders are receiving from Pakistan is an act of aggression against India, the Government of India are entitled, under international law, to send their armed forces across Pakistan territory for dealing effectively with the invaders. However, as such action might involve armed conflict with Pakistan, the Government of India, ever anxious to proceed according to the principles and aims of the Charter of the United Nations, desire to report the situation to the Security Council under Article-35 of the Charter. They feel justified in requesting the Security Council to ask the Government of Pakistan :

(1) To prevent Pakistan Government personnel, military and civil,
from participating or assisting in the invasion of the Jammu and Kashmir State;
(2) To call upon other Pakistani nationals to desist from taking any part in the fighting
in the Jammu and Kashmir State;
(3) To deny to the invaders : (a) access to any use of its territory for operations against Kashmir, (b) military and other supplies, (c) all other kinds of aid that might tend to prolong the present struggle.

14. The Government of India would stress the special urgency of the Security Council taking immediate action on their request. They desire to add that military operations in the invaded areas have, in the past few days, been developing so rapidly that they must, in self-defence, reserve to themselves the freedom to take, at any time when it may become necessary, such military action as they may consider the situation requires.

15. The Government of India deeply regret that a serious crisis should have been reached in their relations with Pakistan. Not only is Pakistan a neighbour but, in spite of the recent separation, India and Pakistan have many ties and many common interests. India desires nothing more earnestly than to live with her neighbour-State on terms of close and lasting friendship. Peace is to the interest of both States; indeed to the interests of the world. The Government of India's approach to the Security Council is inspired by the sincere hope that, through the prompt action of the Council, peace may be preserved.

16. The text of this reference to the Security Council is being telegraphed to the Government of Pakistan."

Shaikh Abdullah was also sent to explain Indian point of view in the UN Security Council, where he delivered the following speech on 5th February 1948:

I have heard with patience, attention and respect the statements made by the representatives of Pakistan and members of the Security Council, as well as the statements made on various occasions by the members of my own delegation... I have heard patiently to the debate in the Security Council, but I feel that I am rather confused. After all, what is the point in dispute? The point in dispute is not that the sovereignty of the Prince is in question, as the representative of Pakistan stated yesterday.....

The subject of the dispute before the Security Council is not the maladministration of the Princely State of Kashmir... the dispute revolves around the fact that Kashmir acceded legally and constitutionally to the Dominion of India... the tribesmen across the border have poured into my country. They have been helped and are being helped by the Pakistan Government, with the result that there is the possibility of a greater conflagration between India and Pakistan. But (the representative of Pakistan) completely denied that any support was being given by the Government of Pakistan to either the tribesmen or those who are in revolt within the State against the constituted authority...

But then this simple issue has been confused... Today Pakistan has become the champion of our liberty. I know very well that in 1946, when I raised the cry of "Quit Kashmir," the leader of the Pakistan Government, who is the Governor-General now, Mr.Mohammad Ali Jinnah, opposed my Government, declaring that this movement was a movement of a few renegades and that Muslims as such had nothing to do with the movement.

The Muslim Conference, which has been talked about so much, opposed my movement and declared its loyalty to the Prince. The representative of Pakistan now says that Sheikh Abdullah, once the supporter of "Quit Kashmir," has joined hands with the Maharaja of Kashmir. But the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and its people, kept calm....

Why was that so? It was because I and my organization never believed in the formula that Muslims and Hindus form separate nations. We do not believe in the two-nation theory, nor in communal hatred or communalism itself. We believed that religion had no place in politics. Therefore, when we launched our movement of "Quit Kashmir" it was not only Muslims who suffered, but our Hindu and Sikh comrades as well....

The situation was worsening day by day and the minority in our State was feeling very nervous. As a result tremendous pressure was brought to bear upon the State administration to release me and my colleagues. The situation outside demanded the release of workers of National Conference, along with its leader, and we were accordingly set free.

Immediately we were liberated from the prison we were faced with the important question of whether Kashmir should accede to Pakistan, accede to India, or remain independent... We could not decide this all important issue before achieving our own liberation, and our slogan became "Freedom before accession." Some friends from Pakistan met me in Srinagar. I have a heart-to-heart discussion with them and explained my point of view....

While I was engaged in these conversations and negotiations with friends from Pakistan, I sent one of my colleagues to Lahore, where he met the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr.Liaquat Ali Khan, and other high dignitaries of the West Punjab Government. He placed the same point of view before them and requested that they should allow us time to consider this vital question, first helping us to achieve our liberation instead of forcing us to declare our decision one way or the other. Then, one fine morning while these negotiations were proceeding, I received news that a full-fledged attack had been carried out by the raiders on Muzaffarabad, frontier town in the Kashmir Province....

While the raiders came to our land, massacred thousands of people -- mostly Hindus and Sikhs, but Muslims too -- abducted thousands of girls, Hindu, Sikhs and Muslims alike, looted our property and almost reached the gates of our summer capital, Srinagar, the result was that the civil, military and police administration failed. The Maharaja, in the dead of the night, left the capital along with his courtiers, and the result was absolute panic. There was no one to take over control. In that hour of crisis, the National Conference came forward with 10,000 volunteers and took over the administration of the country. They started guarding the banks, the offices and houses of every person in the capital. This is the manner in which the administration changed hands. We were de facto in charge of the administration. The Maharaja, later on, gave it a legal form....

I was explaining how the dispute arose -- how Pakistan wanted to force this position of slavery upon us. Pakistan had no interest in our liberation or it would not have opposed our freedom movement. Pakistan would have supported us when thousands of my countrymen were behind bars and hundreds were shot to death. The Pakistani leaders and Pakistani papers were heaping abuse upon the people of Kashmir who were suffering these tortures.

Then, suddenly, Pakistan comes before the bar of the world as the champion of liberty of the people of Jammu and Kashmir....

I had thought all along that the world had got rid of Hitlers and Goebbels, but, from what has happened and what is happening in my poor country, I am convinced that they have only transmigrated their souls into Pakistan...

If Pakistan comes forward and says, "We question the legality of the accession," I am prepared to discuss whether or not the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India was legal. However, now they say, "We want a plebiscite; we want to obtain the free and unfettered opinion of the people of Kashmir. There should be no pressure exerted on the people and they should make the free choice as to the State to which they wish to accede."

Not only is this the offer that was made by the people of Kashmir to Pakistan long, long ago, but it is the offer made by Prime Minister of India at a time when, I think, he had not the slightest need for making it, as Kashmir was in distress.

We realized that Pakistan would not allow us any time, that we had either to suffer the fate of our kith and kin of Muzaffarabad, Baramula, Srinagar and other towns and villages, or to seek help from some outside authority.

Under those circumstances, both the Maharaja and the people of Kashmir requested the Government of India to accept our accession. The Government of India could easily have accepted the accession and could have said, "All right, we accept your accession and we shall render this help." There was no necessity for the Prime Minister of India to add the proviso, when accepting the accessiion, that "India does not want to take advantage of the difficult situation in Kashmir. We will accept this accession because, without Kashmir's acceding to the Indian dominion, we are not in a position to render any military help. But once the country is free from the raiders, marauders and looters, this accession will be subject to ratification by the people." That was the offer made by the Prime Minister of India.

That was the same offer which was made by the people of Kashmir to the Government of Pakistan, but it was refused because at that time Pakistan felt that it could, within a week, conquer the entire Jammu and Kashmir State and then place fait accompali before the world, just as happened some time ago in Europe....

After all, we have been discussing the situation in Kashmir. I should say we have been playing the drama of Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark....

The Security Council should not confuse the issue. The question is not that we want internal freedom; the question is not how the Maharaja got his State, or whether or not he is sovereign. These points are not before the Security Council. Whether Kashmir has lawfully acceded to India -- complaints on that score have been brought before the Security Council on behalf of Pakistan -- is not the point at issue. If that were the point at issue then we should discuss that subject. We should prove before the Security Council that Kashmir and the people of Kashmir have lawfully and constitutionally acceded to the Dominion of India, and Pakistan has no right to question that accession. However, that is not the discussion before the Security Council....

The Security Council must send a commission to the spot to see whether the complaint brought before the Security Council is valid or invalid.... Therefore, somebody must go to the spot. Then at that time it would be for us to prove that the charges we have brought before the Security Council are correct to the last word. That is the only help, we want, and no other help.”

Meanwhile, Maharaja Hari Singh wrote to the Sardar Patel on January 31, 1948, a long letter giving vent to his agony as he was not satisfied with the attitude of Indian Government and politicians. In the course of this letter, he wrote:

"The military situation as you know has been quite depressing since the arrival of the Indian troops. Except the first gains in the Kashmir Valley there has been a debt balance throughout so far as achievements are concerned.

The Indian troops arrived in the Valley on 27 October, at that time we were in possession of about 3/4th of Poonch and the whole of the Mirpur district. We had by then lost only small bits of Poonch and Muzaffarabad district. After the recapture of Baramulla and Uri, there has been a standstill. Two months have passed and the Indian troops are still at Uri. They attempted to venture to the town of Poonch and though they reached it, it was at a great cost and the road was eventually lost. In the Poonch Jagir, which was held by the state troops inch by inch, we had to withdraw and eventually lost the whole of the Jagir except the town itself, where about 40,000 people are besieged alongwith 4 battalions (3 state and 1 Indian). The situation is by no means satisfactory. I may mention that in the August disturbances, with two battalions of the state troops we cleared the whole of Poonch Jagir, peace was restored, the whole of the revenue was realised and the administration was functioning normally. It was only in the second week of October that trouble again began in Poonch and our troops resisted it till about the end of December. But as no help was given, they had eventually to fall back on Poonch town...

In Mirpur district, at the time when the Indian forces arrived, we are still holding Mangla and our territory along the Jehlum Canal bank, but during the past two months we have lost Mangla, Alibeg, Gurdwara, and the town of Mirpur, the town of Bhimber and the villages of Deva and Battala, the town of Rajouri and the whole of the area adjoining Chhamb, Naoshera. Jhangar, a key-place both for Mirpur and Kotli, was lost after a defeat. These defeats have been a heavy blow for us and have also undermined the prestige of the Indian forces. Not a single town has so far been recovered by the Indian troops. The people judge an army from results and not from propaganda carried on about it. On the Kathua-Sialkot border attacks have been intensified. Everyday there is one raid after another. A number of villages have been burnt, people have been looted, women abducted and there have been killings also. The result has been that all the border villages have been vacated and we have about 70,000 to 80,000 refugees in the city of Jammu. Crops, houses and valuables have been lost. Most of the people are also vacating Jammu and its suburbs and are going to West Punjab. The situation, therefore, is worsening everyday.

The name of the Indian Army is getting into the mud in spite of its brilliant record. I was a member of the War Cabinet. I travelled in war zones during the Great war. The name of the Indian Army was at its highest pitch and it pains me to see that the name of the Indian Army has become a topic of every tongue during these days and it is daily losing prestige. Some people think that it is not the fault of the Army but the fault of the policy that is being followed: others feel that it is the fault of the commanders who are quite new to the job. People who would have had to wait for 10 to 15 years to become generals have been put in charge of operations. Opinions differ, but the fact is that the name of the Army is in the mud. Sardar Baldev Singh was here for a day. He has heard from our politicians, members of the public and from me and my Prime Minister all that everyone had to say. He told me secretly that he had ordered certain actions to be taken. I told him that a mere order is nothing unless it is implemented. When you kindly spent two days with us here, a number of decisions were taken and you gave instructions in certain matters. Since your departure nothing has been done and, as I have said, we had more serious attacks. The effort on the part of Pakistan is gaining ground everyday. Their morale owing to success is going up. They loot property, they take away cattle and women and when they go back to Pakistan, they incite people and tell them how much loot and what benefits there are to raid our territory. On the other hand, our morale is rapidly going down. So far as the people are concerned, they are thoroughly demoralised and they start fleeing as soon as there is even a rumour of a raid. Even people living at distant places start fleeing when they see fire five or six miles from their villages. So far as the Indian forces are concerned, they do not leave their apportioned places to meet the raiders. There are no mobile columns to meet them. The work is felt to a few Home Guards or to a platoon or so of very tired state forces. How can it be possible for them to engage 500 or 1,000 raiders ? Last time you ordered guerrillas to come into the state and take over this work. As far as I know, no guerrillas have arrived so far...

In the situation, therefore, my position as Ruler has become very anamolous ant one of great perplexity. People in the State continue sending me telegrams and asking for help. Our civil administration is in the hands of the National Conference and military operations in the hands of the Indian Union. I have no voice or power either on the civil or military side. The State forces are under the Indian Army Commander. The result, therefore, is that I have just to watch the terrible situation in a helpless manner, to look on at the abduction of women, killing and loot of my people, without power to give them any redress whatever. People continue to approach me everyday and they still think that it lies in my power to give them relief and redress. You will realise that my position is getting most awkward every day, so long as the military situation is adverse to us and refugees continue pouring in the city and daily raids from Pakistan keep on coming without any reply from us.

Apart from the military situation, the reference to the UNO and the proceedings that are hanging fire there are causing great uncertainty and perplexity not only to me but to every Hindu and Sikh in the State as well as to those who belong to the National Conference. The feeling is strongly gaining ground that the UN Security Council will take an adverse decision and that the State will eventually have to accede to Pakistan as a result of what the Security Council will decide. The Hindus and Sikhs have, therefore, started going away from the State, as they anticipate that the result of the UNO decision will be the same as what happened in West Punjab and therefore it is much better to clear out of the State before that eventuality arises. The National Conference leaders also feel that they may eventually be let down by accepting the decision of the Security Council and what would be disastrous for them.

"My position in this matter is also precarious. You know I definitely acceded to the Indian Union with the idea that the Union will not let us down and the State would remain acceded to the Union and my position and that of my dynasty would remain secure. It was for this reason that I accepted the advice of the Indian Union in the matter of internal administration. If we have to go to Pakistan, it was wholly unnecessary to accede to India or to mould the internal administration according to the desire of the Indian Union. I feel that the internal administration or the question of accession is wholly foreign to the jurisdiction of the Security Council. The Indian Union only referred a limited question to the Security Council, but the whole issue has been enlarged and not only the matter of aggression by one Dominion over the other is being considered by the Security Council but internal questions of the formation of the Interim Government and the matter of accession have all been taken notice of by them. It was a wrong step in going to Security Council and then agreeing to the enlargement of the agenda before that Council. As soon as the Council enlarged the agenda, the Indian Union should have withdrawn the reference and ended the matter.

In the situation described above, a feeling comes to my mind as to the possible steps that I may take to make, so far as I am concerned, a clean state of the situation. Sometimes I feel that I should withdraw the accession that I have made to the Indian Union. The Union provisionally accepted the accession and if the Union cannot recover back our territory and is going eventually to agree to the decision of the Security Council which would result in handing us over to Pakistan, then there is no point in sticking to the accession of the State to the Indian Union. For the time being, it may be possible to have better terms from Pakistan, but that is immaterial, because eventually it would mean an end of the dynasty and end of the Hindus and Sikhs in the State. There is an alternative possible for me and that is to withdraw the accession and that may kill the reference to the UNO, because the Indian Union will have no right to continue the proceedings before the Council, if the accession is withdrawn. The result may be return to the position the State held before the accession. The difficulty in that situation however, will be that the Indian troops have to work as volunteers to help the State. I am prepared to takeover command of my own forces along with the forces of the Indian Army personally to help the State. I am prepared to lead the Army personally and to command if the Indian Union agrees, also their troops. I know my country much better than any of your generals will know it even during the next several months or years and I am prepared to take the venture boldly rather than merely keep on sitting here doing nothing. It is for you to consider whether the Indian Union will accept this in both the situations, whether after the withdrawal of the accession or even if the accession continues. I am tired of my present life and it is much better to die fighting than watch helplessly the heartbreaking misery of my people.

Another alternative that strikes me is that if I can do nothing, I should leave the State (short of abdication) and reside outside so that people do not think that I can do anything for them. For their grievances they can hold the civil administration responsible or the Indian forces who are in charge of the defence of the State. The responsibility will then clearly be either the Indian Union or of the administration of Sheikh Abdullah. If there is any criticism, those responsible can have it and the responsibility for the suffering of the people will not be mine. Of course, I well anticipate that, as people started saying when I left Kashmir only on Mr. Menon's advice, that I had run away from Srinagar, they will say that I have left them in their hour of misery, but it is no use remaining in a position where one can do nothing merely to avoid criticism. Of course, if I go out of the State, I will have to take the public into confidence and tell them the reasons why I am going out.

The third alternative in the situation that has arisen is that the Indian Dominion discharges its duty on the military side effectively and makes an all-out effort to stop the raids from Pakistan and to drive out of the State not only the raiders but also all rebels. This can only be done if the Dominion really fights. It has avoided fighting so far. Two or three courageous battles will more or less end this situation, and, if it is delayed, there is bound to be a catastrophe. Pakistan is more organised against Kashmir than the Indian Dominion, and as soon as snow melts it will start attacking Kashmir on all sides and the province of Ladakh will also come into the hands of the enemy and the Valley and the whole border will be raided and even double the number of troops at present in Jammu and Kashmir will not be able to save the situation. What should have been done and achieved a month before can still be achieved during the next month, but if matters are delayed and if owing to the UNO reference and the attitude of compromise, the situation remains at a standstill, it would become terribly grave after the expiry of the month. Therefore, unless the Indian Union makes up its mind to fight fully and effectively, I may have to decide upon the two alternatives mentioned above.”

To this letter Sardar Patel replied on February 9, 1948, and said in the course of his reply: "I fully realise what an anxious time you must be having. I can assure you that I am no less anxious about the Kashmir situation and what is happening in the UNO, but whatever the present situation may be, counsel of despair is entirely out of place.”

However, on the complaint of Government of India, the Security Council’s Commission arrived in Delhi on July 10, 1948. After discussing the problem with the Indian authorities, the Commission proceeded to Karachi on July 31, 1948. UNO passed a Resolution on Kashmir [13th August 1948] which clearly states that Pakistan was to vacate its troops from the whole of the State. It also mentions indirectly that Pakistan had consistently lied on the question of whether or not its troops were involved in the fighting in Jammu & Kashmir. Once the then Pakistani Prime Minister conceded that Pakistani troops were indeed involved, the UN had no option but to ask for their withdrawal. But the withdrawal of Pakistani troops never took place till this date. The text of the Resolution passed by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan reads:

Having given careful consideration to the points of view expressed by the representatives of India and Pakistan regarding the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir; and
Being of the opinion that the prompt cessation of hostilities and the correction of conditions the continuance of which is likely to endanger international peace and security are essential to implementation of its endeavors to assist the Governments of India and Pakistan in effecting a final settlement of the situation;

Resolves to submit simultaneously to the Governments of India and Pakistan the following proposal:


A. The Governments of India and Pakistan agree that their respective High Commands will issue separately and simultaneously a cease-fire order to apply to all forces under their control and in the State of Jammu and Kashmir as of the earliest practicable date or dates to be mutually agreed upon within four days after these proposals have been accepted by both Governments.

B. The High Commands of the Indian and Pakistani forces agree to refrain from taking any measures that might augment the military potential of the forces under their control in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. ( For the purpose of these proposals forces under their control shall be considered to include all forces, organized and unorganized, fighting or participating in hostilities on their respective sides.

C.The Commanders-in-Chief of the forces of India and Pakistan shall promptly confer regarding any necessary local changes in present dispositions which may facilitate the cease-fire.

D. In its discretion and as the Commission may find practicable, the Commission will appoint military observers who, under the authority of the Commission and with the co-operation of both Commands, will supervise the observance of the cease-fire order.

E. The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan agree to appeal to their respective peoples to assist in creating and maintaining an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further negotiations.


Simultaneously with the acceptance of the proposal for the immediate cessation of hostilities as outlined in Part I, both the Governments accept the following principles as a basis for the formulation of a truce agreement, the details of which shall be worked out in discussion between their representatives and the Commission.

1. As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State.

2. The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.

3. Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistani troops will be administered by the local authorities under the surveillance of the commission.


1.When the commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals referred to in Part II, A, 2, hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistani forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of its forces from that State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission.

2. Pending the acceptance of the conditions for a final settlement of the situation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian Government will maintain within the lines existing at the moment of the cease-fire the minimum strength of its forces which in agreement with the commission are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order. The Commission will have observers stationed where it deems necessary.

3. The Government of India will undertake to ensure that the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will take all measures within its powers to make it publicly known that peace, law and order will be safeguarded and that all human political rights will be granted.

4. Upon signature, the full text of the truce agreement or a communique containing the principles thereof as agreed upon between the two Governments and the Commission, will be made public.


The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan reaffirm their wish that the future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people and to that end, upon acceptance of the truce agreement, both Governments agree to enter into consultations with the Commission to determine fair and equitable conditions whereby such free expression will be assured.”

Before this main UN Resolution of 13th August, 1948, a RESOLUTION of ASSURANCE was adopted by UN Commission for India and Pakistan which was in the form of an assurance provided to India that:

1. Responsibility for the security of J&K rests with Government of India.

2. The sovereignty of the J&K Government over the entire territory of the State shall not be brought under question.

3. There shall be no recognition of the so-called Azad (Free) Kashmir Government [PoK].

4. The territory occupied by Pakistan shall not be consolidated to the disadvantage of the State of J&K.

5. The administration of the evacuated areas in the North shall revert to the Government of J&K and its defence to the Government of India, who will, if necessary, maintain garrison for preventing the incursion of tribesmen and for guarding main trade routes.

6. Pakistan shall be excluded from all affairs of J&K in particular in the plebiscite, of one should be held.

7. If a plebiscite is found to be impossible for technical or practical reasons, the Commission will consider other methods of determining fair and equitable conditions for ensuring a free expression of people’s will.

8. Plebiscite proposal shall not be binding upon India if Pakistan does not implement Part I and II of the Resolution of 13th August, 1948. [The Resolution had called upon Pakistan to withdraw troops from occupied Kashmir].”

But the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan could not make Pakistan accept these assurances with the result that the very basis of U.N. Resolution of 13th August, 1948 collapsed. However, as a result of mediation by the Commission, the two countries agreed to cease-fire on January 1, 1949. It was agreed that hostilities between the two countries were not to be resumed till the final settlement by the Commission. The proposal for holding a “free and impartial plebiscite” was issued on January 6, 1949. But Pakistan was well aware of the fact that legally and historically it has no claim over Kashmir and even if a plebiscite is held in Kashmir, people will vote in favour of India. At that time Shaikh Abdullah had very powerful grip over the people of Kashmir. Even those who wanted to accede to Pakistan were dominated by his towering personality. He was considered as the savior of the poor, one who persistently fought against an autocratic rule which took him to jail several times. He dominated the psychology of the people of Kashmir to such an extent that they even evaluated him to a place next to Prophet. The slogan coined exclusively for him was: LA-i La-ha Illalah, Shaikh Mohammad Abdullah. Pakistan knew all this very well.

Shaikh Abdullah, a dictatorial hypocrite, was only concerned for his interests and authority. Josef Korbel mentions about the National Conference meet held in Sept. 1949 in Srinagar which was attended by Nehru also. He says "Celebrations were held at a large scale. During the entire celebration, when the Srinagar wore a festive appearance with flags, the Indian National Flag was conspicuous by its absence…..” Daily Hindu reported on September 29, 1949, that “the flag of the National Conference which has been adopted as the State flag is perhaps rightly flown all over the place". Besides, Shaikh Abdullah treated the National Conference as a sprindboard to gain the heights of power and party workers were reduced to “informers” rather than political activists. The people of Kashmir were not taken into confidence while taking any decision and their position became like that of a wretched boat, tossed here and there in the vast stormy ocean of power politics and likely to be crashed any time . All these developments inflicted a big damage to the credibility of Government of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, Shaikh Abdullah and National Conference.

In fact, British Imperialism was not only responsible for the partition of India but also for the Kashmir problem. The Anglo-US faction in the Security Council saw Kashmir only as the neighbour of Soviet Russia and a good springboard for anti-communist activities. But once the Indian army entered Kashmir, the Government of India and the State administration forgot all about the Anglo-Soviet rivalry in the region. They became complacent about the entry of a new more powerful factor in the geopolitics of the region. The British colonialism was being gradually replaced by the American imperialism. The Shaikh administration agonized itself less for the peoples’ movement – their emotions and aspirations. The people of Kashmir were bruised by the posture of their leaders. With the result, efforts of the Security Council’s Commission proved only futile. Dixon was sent as a mediator to settle the Kashmir issue. He studied the self-created problem and discussed it with the authorities of India and Pakistan. But his efforts too failed to yield positive results.

There was a demand that a separate Constituent Assembly be created to ratify the accession with India Union and to frame a separate constitution for the State. A Resolution was passed by the National Conference in 1950 which reads:

This meeting of the General Council of the All Jammu and Kashmir National conference views with great concern the repeated failure of the UN to redress the wrongs of aggression of which the people of the State continue to be victims. This failure in its opinion is due to the continued concessions given to Pakistan by placing a premium on the intransigence.

The decision and unrealistic procedure adopted so far has condemned the people of the State to a life of agonizing uncertainty. The All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference is gravely concerned and cannot any longer afford to ignore the perpetuation of these conditions of doubt and frustration. In the opinion of General Council, time has come when the initiative must be regained by the people to put an end to this indeterminate State of drift and indecision.

The General Council recommends to the Supreme National Executive of the people to take immediate steps for convening a Constituent Assembly based upon adult suffrage and embracing all sections of the people and all the Constituents of the State for the purpose of determining the future shape and affiliations of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In this sovereign Assembly embodying the supreme will of the people of the State we shall give ourselves and our children a constitution worthy of the traditions of our freedom struggle and in accordance with the principles of New Kashmir.”

Subsequently, a proclamation was issued by the Head of the Jammu and Kashmir State [Sadr-i-Riyasat] on 1st May, 1951, the text of which reads as:

Whereas it is the general desire of tile people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir that a Constituent Assembly should be brought into being for the purpose of framing a Constitution for the State;

Whereas it is commonly felt that the convening of the Assembly can no longer be delayed without detriment to the future well-being of the State;

And whereas terms of the proclamation of the Maharaja dated 5 March, 1948 in regard to the convening of an legal assembly as contained hi clauses 4 to 6 of the operative part thereof do not meet the requirements of the present situation;

I, Yuvraj Karan Singh, do hereby direct as follows:

1. A Constituent Assembly consisting of representatives of the people, elected on the basis of adult franchise shall be constituted forthwith for the purpose of framing a constitution for the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

2. For the purpose of the said elections the State shall be divided into a number of territorial constituencies each containing a population of 40,000 or as near thereto as possible and each electing one member. A delimitation Committee shall be set up by the Government to make recommendations as to the number of constituencies and the limits of each constituency;

3. Elections to the Constituent Assembly shall be on the basis of adult franchise, that is to say, every person who is a State subject of any class, is not less than twenty-one years of age on tile first day of March, has been a resident in the constituency for such period as may be prescribed by the rules, shall be entitled to register in the electoral rolls of that constituency, provided that any person who is of unsound mind or has been so declared by a competent court, shall be disqualified for registration;

4. The vote at the election shall tee direct and by secret ballot;

5. The Constituent Assembly shall have power to act notwithstanding any vacancy of the Membership thereof;

6. The Constituent Assembly shall frame its own agenda and make rules for the governing of its procedure and the conduct of its business;

The Government shall make such rules and issue such instructions and orders as may be necessary to give effect to the terms of this proclamation.”

The Constituent Assembly was elected and in his inaugural speech on 5th November, 1951, Shaikh Abdullah said:

We must remember that our struggle for power has now reached its successful climax in convening of this Constituent Assembly. It is for you to translate the vision of New Kashmir into a reality, and I would remind you of its opening words, which will inspire our labors:

We the people of Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh and the Frontier regions, including Poonch and Chenani Illaqas commonly known as Jammu and Kashmir State in order to perfect our union in the fullest equality and self-determination to raise ourselves and our children forever from the abyss of oppression and poverty, degradation and superstition, from medieval darkness and ignorance, into the sunlit valleys of plenty, ruled by freedom, science and honest toil, in worthy participation of the historic resurgence of the peoples of East, and the working masses of the world, and in determination to make this our country a dazzling gem on the snowy bosom of Asia, to propose and propound the following constitution of our State.'

This was passed at the 1944 session of the National Conference in Srinagar. Today, in 1951, embodying aspirations, men and women from the four corners of the state in this Constituent Assembly have become the repository of its sovereign authority. This Assembly, invested with the authority of a constituent body, will be the fountain-head of basic laws laying the foundation of a just social order and safeguarding the democratic rights of all the citizens of the State.

You are the sovereign authority in this State of Jammu and Kashmir; what you decide has the irrevocable force of law. The basic democratic principle of sovereignty of the nation embodied ably in the American and French Constitutions, is once again given shape in our midst. I shall quote the famous words of Article 3 of the French Constitution of 1791:

The source of all sovereignty resides fundamentally in the nation...Sovereignty is one and indivisible, inalienable and imprescriptable. It belongs to the nation.’

We should be clear about the responsibilities that this power invests us with. In front of us lie decisions of the highest national importance which we shall be called upon to take. Upon the correctness of our decisions depends not only the happiness of our land and people now, but the fate as well of generations to come.

What then are the main functions that this Assembly will be called upon to perform?

One great task before this Assembly will be to devise a Constitution for the future governance of the country. Constitution-making is a difficult and detailed matter. I shall only refer to some of the broad aspects of the Constitution, which should be the product of the labors of this Assembly.

Another issue of vital import to the nation involves the future of the Royal Dynasty. Our decision will have to be taken both with urgency and wisdom, for on that decision rests the future form and character of the State.

The Third major issue awaiting your deliberations arises out of the Land Reforms which the Government carried out with vigor and determination. Our "Land to the tiller" policy brought light into the dark homes of the peasantry; but, side by side, it has given rise to the problem of the landowners demand for compensation. The nation being the ultimate custodian of all wealth and resources, the representatives of the nation are truly the best jury for giving a just and final verdict on such claims. So in your hands lies the power of this decision.

Finally, this Assembly will after full consideration of the three alternatives that I shall state later, declare its reasoned conclusion regarding accession. This will help us to canalize our energies resolutely and with greater zeal in directions in which we have already started moving for the social and economic advancement of our country.

To take our first task, that of Constitution-making, we shall naturally be guided by the highest principles of the democratic constitutions of the world. We shall base our work on the principles of equality, liberty and social justice which are an integral feature of all progressive constitutions. The rule of law as understood in the democratic countries of the world should be the cornerstone of our political structure. Equality before the law and the independence of the judiciary from the influence of the Executive are vital to us. The freedom of the individual in the matter of speech, movement and association should be guaranteed: freedom of the press and of opinion should also be features of our Constitution. I need not refer in great detail to all those rights and obligations, already embodied in New Kashmir, which are Integral parts of democracy which has been defined as 'an apparatus of social organization wherein people govern through their chosen representatives and are themselves guaranteed political and civil liberties’.

You are no doubt aware of the scope of our present constitutional ties with India. We are proud to have our bonds with India, the goodwill of those people and government is available to us in unstinted and abundant measure. The Constitution of India has provided for a federal union and in the distribution of sovereign powers has treated us differently from other constituent units. With the exception of the items grouped under Defense Foreign Affairs and Communications in the instrument of Accession , we have complete freedom to frame our Constitution in the manner we like. In order to live and prosper as good partners in a common endeavor for the advancement of our peoples, I would advise that, while safeguarding our autonomy to the fullest extent so as to enable us to have the liberty to build our country according to the best traditions and genius of our people, we may also by suitable constitutional arrangements with the Union establish our right to seek and compel Federal cooperation and assistance in this great task, as well as offer our fullest cooperation and assistance to the Union.

Whereas it would be easy for you to devise a document calculated to create a frame work of law and order, as also a survey of the duties and rights of citizens. It will need more arduous labor to take concrete decisions with regard to the manner in which we propose to bring about the rapid economic development of the State and more equitable distribution of our national income among the people to which we are pledged. Our National Conference avows its faith in the principal that there is one thing common to men of all castes and creeds, and that is their humanity. That being so, the one ailment which is ruthlessly sapping the vitality of human beings in Jammu & Kashmir is their appalling poverty, and if, we merely safeguard their political freedom in solemn terms, it will not affect their lives materially unless it guarantees them economic and social justice. New Kashmir contains a statement of the objectives of bur social policy. It gives broadly a picture of the kind of life that we hope to make possible for the people of Jammu & Kashmir and the manner in which the economic organization of the country will be geared to that purpose. These ideals you will have to integrate with the political structure which you will devise.

The future political set-up which you decide upon for Jammu & Kashmir must also take into consideration the existence of various sub-national groups in our State. Although culturally diverse history has forged an uncommon unity between them; they all are pulsating with the same hopes and aspirations, sharing in each others joys and sorrows . While guaranteeing this basic unity of the State, our constitution must not permit the concentration of power and privilege in the hands of any particular group or territorial region. It must afford the fullest possibilities to each of these groups to grow and flourish in conformity with their cultural characteristics without detriment to the integral unity of the State or the requirements of our social and economic policies.

Now let us take up an issue of basic importance which involves the fundamental character of the State itself. As an instrument of the will of a self-determining people who now become sovereign in their own right, the Constituent Assembly will now re-examine and decide upon the future of the present ruling dynasty, in respect of its authority.

It is clear that this dynasty can no longer exercise authority on the basis of an old discredited Treaty. During my trial for sedition in the "Quit Kashmir'' movement, I had clarified the attitude of my party when I said:

The future constitutional set-up in the State of Jammu & Kashmir cannot derive authority from the old source of relationship which was expiring and was bound to end soon. The set-up could only rest on the active will of the people of the State, conferring on the head of the State the title and authority drawn from the true and abiding source of sovereignty, that is the people.’

On this occasion, in 1946, I had also indicated the basis on which an individual could be entrusted by the people with the symbolic authority of a Constitutional Head:

The State and its Head represent the constitutional circumference and the center of this sovereignty respectively, the Head of the State being the symbol of the authority with which the people may invest him for the realization of their aspirations and the maintenance of their rights’.

In consonance with these principles, and in supreme fulfillment of the people's aspirations, it follows that a Constitutional Head of the State will have to be chosen to exercise the function which this Assembly may chose to entrust to him.

So far as my Party is concerned, we are convinced that the institution of monarchy is incompatible with the spirit and needs of modern times which demand an egalitarian relationship between one citizen and another. The supreme test of a democracy is the measure of equality of opportunity that it affords to its citizens to rise to the highest point of authority and position. In consequence monarchies are fast disappearing from the world picture, as something in the nature of feudal anachronisms. In India, too, where before the partition, six hundred and odd Princes exercised rights and privileges of rulership, the process of democratization has been taken up and at present hardly ten of them exercise the limited authority of constitutional heads of States.

After the attainment of complete power by the people, it would have been an appropriate gesture of good will to recognize Maharaja Hari Singh as the first constitutional Head of the State. But I must say with regret that he has completely forfeited the confidence of every section of the people. His in capacity to adjust himself to changed conditions and his antiquated views on vital problems constitute positive disqualifications for him to hold the high office of a democratic Head of the State. Moreover, his past actions as a ruler have proved that he is not capable of conducting himself with dignity, responsibility and impartiality. The people still remember with pain and regret his failure to stand by them in times of crisis, and his incapacity to afford protection to a section of his people in Jammu.

Finally we come to the issue which has made Kashmir an object of world interest, and has brought her before the forum of the United Nations. This simple issue has become so involved that people have begun to ask themselves after three and a half years of tense expectancy. "Is there any solution ?" Our answer is in the affirmative. Everything hinges round the genuineness of the will to find a solution. If we face the issue straight, the solution is simple.

The problem may be posed in this way. Firstly, was Pakistan's action in invading Kashmir in 1947 morally and legally correct, judged by any norm of international behavior ? Sir Owen Dixon's verdict on this issue is perfectly plain. In unambiguous terms he declared Pakistan an aggressor. Secondly, was the Maharajah's accession to India legally valid or not ? The legality of the accession has not been seriously questioned by any responsible or independent person or authority.

These two answers are obviously correct. Then where is the justification of treating India and Pakistan at par in matters pertaining to Kashmir ? In fact, the force of logic dictates the conclusion that the aggressor should withdraw his armed forces, and the United Nations should see that Pakistan gets out of the State.

In that event, India herself, anxious to give the people of the State a chance to express their will freely, would willingly cooperate with any sound plan of demilitarization. They would withdraw their forces, only garrisoning enough posts to ensure against any repetition of that earlier treacherous attack from Pakistan.

These two steps would have gone a long way to bring about a new atmosphere in the State. The rehabilitation of displaced people, and the restoration of stable civic conditions would have allowed people to express their will and take the ultimate decision.

We as a Government are keen to let our people decide the future of our land in accordance with their own wishes. If these three preliminary processes were accomplished, we should be happy to have the assistance of international observes to ensure fair play and the requisite conditions for a free choice by the people.

Instead invader and defender have been put on the same plane. Under various garbs, attempts have been made to sidetrack the main issue. Sometimes against all our ideals of life and way of living attempts divide our territories have been made in the form of separation of our state religion-wise, with ultimate plans of further disrupting territorial integrity. Once an offer was made to police our country with Commonwealth forces, which threatens to bring in Imperial control by the back door. Besides the repugnance which our people have however, to the idea of bringing foreign troops on their soil, the very presence of Commonwealth troops could have created suspicions among our neighbors that we were allowing ourselves to be used as a base of possible future aggression against them. This could easily have made us into a second Korea.

The Cabinet Mission Plan has provided for three courses which may be followed by the Indian States when determining future affiliations. A State can either accede to India or accede to Pakistan, but failing to do either, it still can claim the right to remain independent. These three alternatives are naturally open to our State. While the intention of the British Government was to secure The privileges of the Princes, the representatives of the people must have the primary consideration of promoting the greatest good of the common people. Whatever steps they take must contribute to the growth of a democratic social order wherein all invidious distinctions between groups and creeds are absent. Judged by this supreme considerations, what are the advantages and disadvantages of our State's accession to either India or Pakistan or of having and independent Status.

As a realist I am conscious that nothing is all black or all white, and there are many facts to each of the propositions before us. I shall first speak on the merits and demerits of the State's accession to India. In the final analysis, as I understand it, it is the kinship of ideals which determines the strength of ties between two States. The Indian National Congress has consistently supported the cause of the State's peoples' freedom. The autocratic rule of the Princes has been done away with and representative government have been entrusted with the administration. Steps towards democratization have been taken and these have raised the people's standard of living, brought about much-needed social reconstruction, and above all built up their very independence of spirit. Naturally, if we accede to India there is no danger of a revival of feudalism and autocracy. Moreover, during the last four years the Government of India has never tried to interfere in our internal autonomy this experience has strengthened our confidence in them as a democratic State.

The real character of a State is revealed in its Constitution. The Indian Constitution has set before the country the goal of secular democracy based upon justice, freedom and equality for all without distinction. This is the bedrock of modern democracy. This should meet the argument that the Muslims of Kashmir cannot have security in India, where the large majority of the population are Hindus. Any unnatural cleavage between religious groups is the legacy of Imperialism, and no modern State can afford to encourage artificial division if it is to achieve progress and prosperity. The Indian Constitution has amply and finally repudiated the concept of a religious State, which is a throw back to medievalism, by guaranteeing the equality of rights of all citizens irrespective of their religion, color caste and class.

The national movement in our State naturally gravitates towards these principles of secular democracy. The people here will never accept a principle which seeks to favor the interests of one religion or social group against another. This affinity in political principles, as well as in past association, and our common path of suffering in the cause of freedom, must be weighed properly while deciding the future of the State.

We are also intimately concerned with the economic well-being of the people of this State. As I said before while referring to constitution-building, political ideals are often meaningless unless linked with economic plans. As a State, we are concerned mainly with agriculture and trade. As you know, and I have detailed before, we have been able to put through our "land to the tiller" legislation and make of it a practical success. Land and all it means is an inestimable blessing to our peasants who have dragged along in servitude to the landlord and his allies for centuries without number. We have been able under present conditions to carry these reforms through, are we sure that in alliance with landlord-ridden Pakistan, with so many feudal privileges intact, that the economic reforms of ours will be tolerated. We have already heard that news of our Land Reforms has traveled to the peasants of the enemy-occupied area of our State, who vainly desire like status, and like benefits. In the second place, our economic welfare is bound up with our arts and crafts. The traditional markets for these precious goods for which we are justly known all over the world, have been centered in India. The volume of our trade, in spite of the dislocation of the last few years, shows this. Industry is also highly important to us. Potentially we are rich in minerals, and in the raw materials of industry; we need help to develop our resources. India, being more highly industrialized than Pakistan, can give us equipment, technical services and materials. She can help us too in marketing. Many goods also which it would not be practical for us to produce here for instance sugar, cotton, cloth, and other essential commodities, can be got by us in large quantities from India. It is around the efficient supply of such basic necessities that the standard of the man in-the-street depends.

I shall refer now to the alleged disadvantages of accession to India. To begin with, although the land frontiers of India and Kashmir are contiguous, an all-weather road-link as dependable as the one we have with Pakistan does not exist. This must necessarily hamper trade and commerce to some extent particularly during the snowy winter months. But we have studied this question, and, with improvements in modern engineering, if the State wishes to remain with India the establishment of an all-weather stable system of communication is both feasible and easy. Similarly, the use of the State rivers as a means of timber transport is impossible if we turn to India, except in Jammu where the river Chenab still carries logs to the plains. In reply to this argument, it may be pointed out that accession to India will open up possibilities of utilizing our forest wealth for industrial purposes and that, instead of lumber, finished goods, which will provide work for our carpenters and laborers, can be exported to India where there is a ready market for them. Indeed in the presence of our fleets of timber carrying trucks, river-transport is a crude system which inflicts a loss of some 20% to 35%, in transit.

Still another factor has to be taken into consideration. Certain tendencies have been asserting themselves in India which may in the future convert it into a religious State wherein the interests of Muslims will be jeopardized. This would happen if a communal organization had a dominant hand in the Government, and Congress ideals of the equality of all communities were made to give way to religious intolerance. The continued accession of Kashmir to India should, however, help in defeating this tendency. From my experience of the last four years, it is my considered judgment that the presence of Kashmir in the Union of India has been the major factor in establishing relations between the Hindus and Muslims of India. Gandhiji was not wrong when he uttered words before his death which paraphrase, ‘I lift up mine eyes into the hills, from whence cometh my help.’

As I have said before, we must consider the question of accession with all open mind, and not let our personal prejudices stand in the way of a balanced judgment. I will now invite you to evaluate the alternative of accession to Pakistan.

The most powerful argument which can be advanced in her favor is that Pakistan is a Muslim State, and, big majority of our people being Muslims the State must accede to Pakistan. This claim of being a Muslim State is of course only a camouflage. It is a screen to dupe the common man, so that he may not see clearly that Pakistan is a feudal State in which a clique is trying by these methods to maintain itself in power. In addition to this, the appeal to religion constitutes a sentimental and a wrong approach to the question. Sentiment has its own place in life but often it leads to irrational action. Some argue, as supposedly natural corollary to this, that on our acceding to Pakistan our annihilation or survival depends. Facts have disproved this, right-thinking men would point out that Pakistan is not an organic unity of all the Muslims in this sub- continent. It has on the contrary, caused the dispersion of the Indian Muslims for whose benefit it was claimed to have been created. There are two Pakistans at least a thousand miles apart from each other. The total population of Western Pakistan which is contiguous to our State, is hardly 15 million. While the total number of Muslims, resident in India is as many as 40 million. As one Muslim is as good as another, the Kashmiri Muslims if they are worried by such considerations should choose the forty millions living in India.

Looking at the matter too from a more modern political angle religious affinities alone do not and should not normally determine the political alliance of States. We do not find a Christian bloc, a Buddhist bloc, or even a Muslim bloc, about which there is so much talk nowadays in Pakistan…...........

The third course open to us has still to be discussed. We have to consider the alternative of making ourselves an Eastern Switzerland, of keeping aloof from both States but having friendly relations with them. This might seem attractive in that it would appear to pave the way out of the present deadlock. To us as a tourist country it could also have certain obvious advantages, but in considering independence we must not ignore practical considerations. Firstly, it is not easy to protect sovereignty and independence in a small country which has not sufficient strength to defend itself on our long and difficult frontiers bordering so many countries. Secondly we must have the goodwill of all our neighbors. Can we find powerful guarantors among them to pull together always in assuring us freedom from aggression? I would like to remind you that from August 15 to October 22, 1947 our State was independent and the result was that our weakness was exploited by the neighbor with invasion. What is the guarantee that in future too we may not be victims of a singular aggression.

I have now put the pros and cons of the three alternatives before you. It should not be difficult for men of discrimination and patriotism gathered in this Assembly to weigh all these in the scales of our national good and pronounce the well being of the country lies in the future.”

Again on 23rd March, 1952, Shaikh Abdullah publically said: “…… Suppose for the sake of argument that the people do not ratify the accession with India; the position that would follow will not be that Kashmir becomes a part of Pakistan. No! that would not happen legally and constitutionally. What would happen in such a case would be that the State would again regain the status which it enjoyed immediately preceding the accession. Let us be clear about it…..”. A few small leaders with big egos wanted the partition of the State through a plebiscite to decide the Kashmir issue once for all. But he stood for integrity, probity and rectitude of the Jammu and Kashmir State.

Shaikh Abdullah persuaded Government of India to grant special status to the Jammu and Kashmir State. Consequently the Article 370 was added to the Indian Constitution, which granted the:

(1) Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,-
(a) the provisions of article 238 shall not apply in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir;

(b) the power of Parliament to make laws for the said State shall be limited to--
(i) those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to the Dominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State; and
(ii)such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify.

Explanation- For the purposes of this article, the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognised by the President as the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja's Proclamation dated the fifth day of March, 1948;

(c) the provisions of article 1 and of this article shall apply in relation to that State;

(d) such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that State subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify :
Provided that no such order which relates to the matters specified in the Instrument of Accession of the State referred to in paragraph (i) of sub-clause

(e) shall be issued except in consultation with the Government of the State :
Provided further that no such order which relates to matters other than those referred to in the last preceding proviso shall be issued except with the concurrence of that Government.

(2) If the concurrence of the Government of the State referred to in paragraph (ii) of sub-clause (b) of clause (1) or in the second proviso to sub-clause (d) of that clause be given before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the State is convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon.
(3) Not withstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify :
Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.”

India never want Kashmir to become another Korea. Nehru declared in 1951 that he would like to offer Kashmir to Pakistan on a silver plate rather than have an independent Kashmir on its borders. In fact, the Indian authorities sensed the Anglo-US imperialist designs to create independent Kashmir where colonial creatures could thrive and perpetrate their ravages not only in India but Central Asia also.

In 1952, The representatives of Kashmir Government conferred with the representatives of Indian Government and arrived at an agreement in order to endorse the main decisions of the Constituent Assembly of the State of J&K. This arrangement was later on known as the "Delhi Agreement, 1952". The main features of this agreement were:

i. in view of the uniform and consistent stand taken up by the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly that sovereignty in all matters other than those specified in the Instrument of Accession continues to reside in the State, the Government of India agreed that, while the residuary powers of legislature vested in the Centre in respect of all states other than Jammu and Kashmir, in the case of the latter they vested in the State itself;

ii. it was agreed between the two Governments that in accordance with Article 5 of the Indian Constitution, persons who have their domicile in Jammu and Kashmir shall be regarded as citizens of India, but the State legislature was given power to make laws for conferring special rights and privileges on the ‘state subjects’ in view of the ‘State Subject Notifications of 1927 and 1932: the State legislature was also empowered to make laws for the ‘State Subjects’ who had gone to Pakistan on account of the communal disturbances of 1947, in the event of their return to Kashmir;

iii. as the President of India commands the same respect in the State as he does in other Units of India, Articles 52 to 62 of the Constitution relating to him should be applicable to the State. It was further agreed that the power to grant reprieves, pardons and remission of sentences etc; would also vest in the President of India'

iv. the Union Government agreed that the State should have its own flag in addition to the Union flag, but it was agreed by the State Government that the State flag would not be a rival of the Union flag; it was also recognised that the Union flag should have the same status and position in Jammu and Kashmir as in the rest of India, but for historical reasons connected with the freedom struggle in the State, the need for continuance of the State flag was recognised

v. there was complete agreement with regard to the position of the Sadar-i-Riyasat; though the Sadar-i-Riyasat was to be elected by the State Legislature, he had to be recognised by the President of India before his installation as such; in other Indian States the Head of the State was appointed by the President and was as such his nominee but the person to be appointed as the Head, had to be a person acceptable to the Government of that State; no person who is not acceptable to the State Government can be thrust on the State as the Head. The difference in the case of Kashmir lies only in the fact that Sadar-i-Riyasat will in the first place be elected by the State legislature itself instead of being a nominee of the Government and the President of India. With regard to the powers and functions of the Sadar-i-Riyasat the following argument was mutually agreed upon

a. the Head of the State shall be a person recognised by the President of the Union on the recommendations of the Legislature of the State;
b. he shall hold office during the pleasure of the President;
c. he may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office;
d. subject to the foregoing provisions, the Head of the State shall hold office for a term of five years from the date he enters upon his office;
e. provided that he shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold the office until his successor enters upon his office"

vi. with regard to the fundamental rights, some basic principles agreed between the parties were enunciated; it was accepted that the people of the State were to have fundamental rights. But in the view of the peculiar position in which the State was placed, the whole chapter relating to ‘Fundamental Rights’ of the Indian Constitution could not be made applicable to the State, the question which remained to be determined was whether the chapter on fundamental rights should form a part of the State Constitution of the Constitution of India as applicable to the State;

vii. with regard to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India, it was accepted that for the time being, owing to the existence of the Board of Judicial Advisers in the State, which was the highest judicial authority in the State, the Supreme Court should have only appellate jurisdiction;

viii. there was a great deal of discussion with regard to the "Emergency Powers"; the Government of India insisted on the application of Article 352, empowering the President to proclaim a general emergency in the State; the State Government argued that in the exercise of its powers over defence (Item 1 on the Union List), in the event of war or external aggression, the Government of India would have full authority to take steps and proclaim emergency but the State delegation was, however, averse to the President exercising the power to proclaim a general emergency on account of internal disturbance.

In order to meet the viewpoint of the State’s delegation, the Government of India agreed to the modification of Article 352 in its application to Kashmir by the addition of the following words:

but in regard to internal disturbance at the request or with the concurrence of the Government of the State.’ At the end of clause (1)

Both parties the agreed that the application of Article 356, dealing with suspension of the State Constitution and 360, dealing with financial emergency, was not necessary.”

The Delhi Agreement was a follow up to the article 370 inserted in the Constitution of India. According to Josef Korbel, 'Danger in Kashmir', "The Delhi Agreement gave to Kashmir, special rights which other princely states never had like … It was agreed that the hereditary ruler would be replaced by a Head of State to be elected by the Constituent Assembly/State Assembly for a term of 5 years however subject to rectification by the President of India. Secondly fundamental rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution of India will apply to J&K subject to the provision that they will not be applicable to the program of land reforms including the expropriation of land without compensation nor they should adversely affect the security measures undertaken by the State Govt. Thirdly that the Kashmir Legislature ‘ shall have the power to define and regulate the rights and privileges of the permanent residents of the state, more especially in regard to the acquisition of immovable property, appointments to services and like matters’. Fourthly the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India was to be limited as regards Kashmir, to inter state disputes, to the fundamental rights applicable to the state and to matters of defense, foreign Affairs and communications. The Govt. of India wanted the Supreme Court to be the final court of appeal in civil and criminal cases. But Sheikh did not agree and left it open.”

The National Flag of India was accepted to be the supreme but the ‘Kashmir State Flag’ was also to be maintained. In financial matters, the Govt. of India wanted integration but Sheikh got it postponed. The most important provision of the Agreement was the emergency powers of the President of India. As per Art.352 of the Indian Constitution, President has the power to declare emergency in case of invasion, external danger or internal disturbance. But as per the Agreement in case of internal disturbance, emergency can only be declared at the request or the concurrence of the Govt. of the State. Pt Nehru while making a statement on Delhi Agreement on July 1952 had described ‘the article an unusual provision and by no means final’.

Christopher Thomas [Faultline Kashmir] has said that "Soon after reaching the 1952 Delhi Agreement with Nehru, Shaikh had started distancing himself from it by raising once more the spectacle of substantial or complete independence for Kashmir." Even after the Delhi Accord had been ratified by the State Constituent Assembly, Shaikh Abdullah said immediately thereafter, "A time will come when I will bid them goodbye". This reveals that he was in league with the rival forces.

Shaikh Abdullah made a detailed statement to the Constituent Assembly on Delhi Agreement and the relations with the Union [11th August, 1952], the extract of which was:

I got permission to make a statement before the House in regard to the constitutional relationship between the Jammu and Kashmir State and the Indian Union. As the Hon'ble Members are aware, during the last session of the Constituent Assembly, the Basic Principles Committee had submitted a report making certain specific recommendations about the future Head of the State. The House, while accepting these recommendations, had charged the Drafting Committee to present for the consideration of the Assembly, a draft resolution incorporating the proposed principles for the election of the Head of the State. The Drafting Committee will, no doubt, submit its report to the House during this session.

Since the changes proposed by this Assembly involved corresponding adjustments in the Indian Constitution, the Government of India desired that it should have time to discuss with our representatives other matters pertaining to the constitutional relationship of our State with the Union. During the last stage of these discussions, it became necessary for me and some of my other colleagues in the Government to participate in the talks. I am now in a position to inform the House that certain broad principles have been laid down and certain decisions have been tentatively arrived at between the two Governments……

The basis of our relationship with India is the Instrument of Accession which enabled our State to enter into a lemon with India. In accordance with the terms of the Instrument, certain powers were transferred to the Centre. The principal matters specified for this purpose in respect to which the Dominion Legislature could make laws for this State were:

(a) Defence, (b) External Affairs, and (c) Communications.
This arrangement involved a division of sovereignty which is the normal feature of a Federation. Beyond the powers transferred by it to the Dominion, the State enjoyed complete residuary sovereignty.

These terms of the association of our State with the Dominion of India were maintained; and, subsequently, when the Constituent Assembly of India was charged with the task of framing a Constitution, this over-riding consideration was kept m view in determining the position of this State in the pro-posed Constitution Earlier to this, it had been agreed between the two Governments that "in view of the special problems arising in respect of this State and the fact that the Government of India have assured its people that they would them-selves finally determine their political future", a special position should be accorded to Jammu and Kashmir in the future Constitution so that a limited field of the Union Powers over the State is ensured. Dour representatives were nominated from the Jammu and Kashmir State to the Constituent Assembly of India] These representatives participated in the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly of India at a time when the bulk of the Indian Constitution had already been adopted. It was at this stage that the constitutional position of this State was determined in the Constitution of India. The representatives of the Jammu and Kashmir State reiterated their view that our association with India should be based on the terms of the Instrument of Accession. It was at this stage that the constitutional position of the State was determined in the Constitution of India. Lithe representatives of the Jammu and Kashmir State reiterated their view that our association with India should be based on the terms of the Instrument of Accession. It was also made clear that while the accession of the Jammu and Kashmir State with India was complete in fact and law to the extent of the subjects enumerated in this Instrument.. the autonomy of the State with regard to all oilier subjects outside the ambit of the Instrument of accession should be preserved……..

Evince a good deal of confused thinking and uninformed criticism is indulged in by some interested people. I would like to point out here that the Constitution has confined the scope and jurisdiction of the Union powers to the terms of the Instrument of accession with the proviso that they may be extended to such other matters also as the President may by order specify with the concurrence of the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly. The special problems facing the State were thus taken into account and under the Constitution the relationship approximated to that subsisting under the Instrument of accession.

The Constitution of the Indian Union, therefore, clearly envisaged the convening of a Constituent Assembly for the Jammu and Kashmir State which would be finally competent to determine the ultimate position of the State in respect of the sphere of its accession which would be incorporated as in the shape of permanent provisions of the Constitution………

The Hon'ble Members are aware that as the leader of the National Conference party, I indicated in my inaugural address the scope of the decisions which I felt the Constituent Assembly would have to take. I listed the four main issues as pertaining to the main functions of the Assembly, viz., the future of the Ruling Dynasty, payment of compensation for the land transferred to cultivators under the Big Landed Estates Act, Ratification of the State's Accession to India as well as the framing of a Constitution for the State. While discussing these issues in my address to this House, I had given clear indications of my party's views in regard to them. I had also an occasion to place my point of view on these issues before the representatives of the Government of India and I had the satisfaction that they approved of it.

When Constituent Assembly commenced its labours, it had to tackle these issues in course of time. It took decisions m regard to payment of compensation to landlords and it came to the conclusion that no compensation was justified.

The Constituent Assembly has, at present, under its consideration the future of the Ruling Dynasty. In this connection the Basic Principles Committee recommended that the institution of hereditary rulership in the State should be abolished and in future the office of the Head of State should be elective. While accepting the recommendations of the Basic Principles Committee, this Assembly charged the Drafting Committee to place before this House appropriate proposals for the implementation of these recommendations.

As I said in the beginning of my statement, such a fundamental decision involved corresponding adjustments in the Indian Constitution and in order to finalist the position in respect of this issue and other matters pertinent to it, I and my colleagues had discussions with the representatives of the Government of India as a result of which we arrived at some tentative agreement, the details of which I wish to place before the House.

The Government of India held the view that the fact that the Jammu and Kashmir State was constituent unit of the Union of India led inevitably to certain consequences in regard to some important matters, namely:

(a) Residuary Powers,

(b) Citizenship,
(c) Fundamental Rights,
(d) Supreme Court of India
(e) National Flag,
(f) The President of India,
(g) The Headship of the State
(h) Financial Integration,
(i) Emergency Provisions, and
(j) Conduct of elections to Houses of Parliament.

Permit me, Mr. President now to deal with each one of these Items and also the agreement, arrived at between the Jammu and Kashmir Government and the Government of India in relation to them.


It was agreed that while under the present Indian Constitution, the Residuary Powers vested in the Centre in respect of all the States other than Jammu and Kashmir, in the case of our State, they rested in the State itself. This position is compatible with Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and the instrument of Accession on which this article is based. We have always held that the ultimate source of sovereignty resides in the people. It is, therefore, from the people that all powers can flow. Under these circumstances, it is up to the people of Kashmir through this Assembly to transfer more powers for mutual advantage to the custody of the Union Centre.


It was agreed that in accordance with Article 5 of the Indian Constitution persons who have their domicile in the Jammu and Kashmir State shall be the citizens of India. It was further agreed that the State legislature shall have power to define and regulate the rights and privileges of the permanent residents of the State, more especially in regard to acquisition of immovable property, appointments to services and like matters. Till then the existing State law would apply. It was also agreed that special provision should be made in the laws governing citizenship to provide for the return of those permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir State, who went to Pakistan in connection with the disturbances of 1947 or in fear of them as well as of those who had left for Pakistan earlier but could not return. If they returned, they should be entitled to the rights, and privileges and obligations of citizenship.

There are historic reasons which necessitate such constitutional safeguards as for centuries past, the people of the State have been victims of exploitation at the hands of their well to- do neighbours. The Hon'ble Members are perhaps aware that in the late twenties, the people of Jammu and Kashmir agitated for the protection of their bonafide rights against the superior competing interests of the non-residents of the State. It was in response to this popular demand that the Government of the day promulgated a Notification in 1927 by which a strict definition of the term "State Subject'' was provided. I am glad to say that the Government of India appreciated the need for such a safeguard. No definition of the special rights and privileges of the residents of the State can afford to remain static. The need may arise at one stage or the other to liberalise such a definition. The importance of the fact that State Legislature shall retain powers to be able to effect such modifications becomes obvious in this context.

There is yet another class of State Subjects whose interests had to be safeguarded. The Hon'ble Members of this House are aware that on account of the disturbances of 1947 and also as a consequence of the invasion of this country by Pakistan large number of the residents of this State suffered dislocation. We have, therefore, to visualize the possibility of their return to their homes and hearths as soon as normal conditions are restored. It has been suggested in certain quarters that this protection has been provided only for those residents of the State who are at present stranded in Pakistan I would like to make it clear, as I have stated earlier, that this protection will operate only when the conditions are normal and such conditions naturally presume that the resettlement of the dislocated population, whether Muslim or Non-Muslim cannot be one-sided or unilateral.


It is obvious that while our constitution is being framed the fundamental rights and duties of a citizen have necessarily got to be defined. It was agreed, however, that the Fundamental Rights, which are contained in the Constitution of India could not be conferred on the residents of the Jammu and Kashmir State in their entirety taking into account the economic, social and political character of our movement as enunciated in the New Kashmir Plan. The need for providing suitable modifications, amendments and exceptions as the case may be in the Fundamental Rights Chapter of the Indian Constitution in order to harmonize those provisions with the pattern of our principles was admitted. Particular care would have to be taken to preserve the basic character of the decisions taken by this House on the question of land compensation as well as the laws relating to the transfer of land to the tiller and other matters; The main point to be determined is whether the Chapter of our Fundamental Rights should form a part of the Kashmir Constitution or that of the Union Constitution.


It was agreed that the Supreme Court should have original jurisdiction in respect of disputes mentioned in Article 131 of the Constitution of India. It was further agreed that the Supreme Court should have jurisdiction in regard to Fundamental Rights which are agreed to by the State.

On behalf of the Government of India, it was recommended that the Advisory Board in the State, designated "His High-ness's Board of Judicial Advisors" should be abolished and the jurisdiction exercised by it should be vested in the Suprement Court of India. That is to say that the Supreme Court should be the final Court of appeal in all civil and criminal matters as laid down in the Constitution of India.

We, however, felt that this would need a detailed examination and consequently it was agreed that we should have time to consider it further.


We agreed that in view of the clarifications issued by me in my public statements while interpreting the resolution of this House according to which the old State flag was in no sense a rival of the National Flag. But for historical and other reasons connected with the freedom struggle in the State, the need for the continuance of this flag was recognized. The Union flag to which we continue our allegiance as a part of the Union will occupy the supremely distinctive place in the State.


It was agreed that the powers to grant reprieve and com-mute death sentences, etc. should also belong to the President of the Union.


I am glad to inform this House that the Government of India have appreciated the principle proposed by the Basic Principle Committee as adopted by this Assembly in regard to the abolition of the hereditary rulership of the State. In order to accommodate this principle, the following arrangement was mutually agreed upon:

i.The Head of the State shall be the person recognized by the President of the Union of the recommendation of the Legislature of the State.

ii. He shall hold office during the pleasure of the President.

iii. He may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President resign his office.

iv. Subject to the foregoing provisions, the Head of the State shall hold office for a term of five years from the date he enters upon his office.

v. Provided that he shall, notwithstanding the expiration of his term, continue to hold the office until his successor enters upon his office.


In regard to this subject, we agreed that it would be necessary to evolve some sort of financial arrangement between the State and the Indian Union. But as this involved far reaching consequences, it was felt that a detailed and objective examination of this subject would be necessary.


On behalf of the Government of India, it was stated that the application of Article 352 of the Constitution was necessary as it related to vital matters affecting the security of the State. They did not press for the application of Articles 356 or 360.

On behalf of the Kashmir Delegation, it was stated that the application of Article 352 to the State was not necessary. In the event of war or external aggression, item I in the Seventh Schedule relating to the defence of India applied and the Government of India would have full authority to take any steps in connection with defence, etc. In particular, we were averse to internal disturbance being referred to in this connection, as even so me petty internal disorder might be considered sufficient for the application of Article 352'.

In reply it was pointed out that Article 352 could only be applied in a state of grave emergency and not because of some small disorder or disturbance.

In order to meet our view point, it was suggested on behalf of the Government of India that Article 352 might be accepted as it is with the addition at the end of the first paragraph (1) of the following words: "but in regard to internal disturbance at the request or with the concurrence of the Government of the State."

We generally accepted this position, but wanted some time to consider the implications and consequences as laid down in Articles 353, 358 and 359 which on the whole we accepted. In regard to Article 354, we wanted to examine it further before expressing our opinion.


Article 324 of the Indian Constitution already applies to State in so far as it relates to elections to Parliament and to the Offices of the President and the vice-President of India.

I have put before this House the broad indications of the agreements arrived at between us and the Government of India. As the Hon'ble Members will, no doubt, observe, the attitude of the Government of India has been most helpful. A satisfactory position has emerged and we are now able to assess the basic issues of our constitutional relationship with India in clearer terms. There has been a good deal of accommodation of our respective points of view. Hotly the representatives of the Government of India and the Kashmir Delegation, have been impelled by the desire to strengthen further the existing relationship to remove all obscurity and vagueness. We are convinced, as ever before, that we have the full support both of the Government and the people of India in the fulfillment of our democratic ideals and the realization of our objectives.”

Shyama Prasad’s prolonged triangular correspondence with Nehru and Shaikh Abdullah on the status of the State, which was published at that time by the party [Jana Sang], is the most authentic evidence of his stand on the issue. In his letter dated January 9, 1953 to both of them, for instance, he wrote: “We would readily agree to treat the valley with Shaikh Abdullah as the head in any special manner and for such time as he would like but Jammu and Ladakh must be fully integrated with India.” While Nehru rejected the idea straightway warning against its repercussions in Kashmir and its international implications, Abdullah sent a detailed reply in which he, inter alia, said. “You are perhaps not unaware of the attempts that are being made by Pakistan and other interested quarters to force a decision for disrupting the unity of the State. Once the ranks of the State people are divided, any solution can be foisted on them.”

Finally, the prolonged correspondence is concluded with Dr. Mukerjee’s letter to Nehru on February 17, 1953, in which he suggested:

1. Both parties reiterate that the unity of the State will be maintained and that the principle of autonomy will apply to the province of Jammu and also to Ladakh and Kashmir Valley.

2. Implementation of Delhi Agreement—which granted special status to the State—will be made at the next session of Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly.”

Nehru replied that the “proposal for autonomy to the three provinces had been agreed by him and Abdullah in July 1952; If Mukerjee had realised his mistake, he should withdraw the agitation unconditionally” . Mukerjee was unwilling to do it as it amounted to surrender. The dead lock prolonged over. However, after sudden death of Mukerjee, Nehru made an appeal to the people of Jammu to withdraw their agitation as their demand for regional autonomy had been conceded. The State government endorsed the appeal on July 2, when Praja Parishad leaders were released who went to Delhi where they met Nehru on July 3. Thus the Praja Parishad agitation was withdrawn on the assurance of regional autonomy and immediate implementation of the Delhi Agreement.

Meanwhile the State government had sent a 45 page draft on regional autonomy to Durga Dass Verma, the underground dictator of the Parishad agitation. He returned it with approval after consulting the constitutional experts that were available to him.

If the regional autonomy to the three regions within the State, had been implemented, there might not have been any Kashmir problem by now. At any rate the perpetual tension between the regions, which in Jammu often takes a communal form while in Kashmir it assumes anti-India form, might have ended. But there are number of ifs and buts. One factor which prevented its implementation was that Praja Parishad and Jana Sangh backed out of it. According to Balraj Madhok, who later on became the President of the Jana Sangh, the party withdrew its commitment to the State autonomy and regional autonomy under the directive from Nagpur (the RSS headquarters) .The Party continued a ceaseless campaign against regional autonomy and Article 370.

However, some different developments were taking place behind the curtain. Shaikh Abdullah’s dreams were getting bigger and bigger every day. Dr Karan Singh says " In a meeting with Nehru at Delhi in Nov. 1952, Pt. Nehru "repeated some of the perplexity that he was beginning to feel in dealing with Sheikh Abdullah".The things all together changed in May 1953. Intelligence reports came that Shaikh Abdullah was contriving to enter into relation with Washington on his own and wanted an independent status for Kashmir as an alternative solution to the problem. He even moved a Resolution in the Working Committee of National Conference for an ‘INDEPENDENT KASHMIR’. A State Autonomy Committee constituted by the National Conference and it strongly favoured the restoration of pre-1953 status of Jammu and Kashmir which meant that:

1. Central Govt will have control over defense, foreign affairs and communications only.
2. Jammu and Kashmir will remain out of the purview of Supreme Court of India.
3. Central Election Commission will have no jurisdiction over Jammu and Kashmir.
4. Comptroller and Auditor General will have nothing to do with the auditing of the financial transactions of the state.
5. Article 370 to be made permanent.
6. The state will have its own President (Sadr-e-Riyast) and the Prime Minister.
7. All the laws promulgated after 1953 will be repealed.
8. National flag will fly only on the Central Govt buildings.
9. President can not impose President's rule without the concurrence of the state.
10. Provisions of the constitution of India relating to the All India services will not apply to Jammu and Kashmir.

This was the clear attempt for the disintegration of India and creation of independent Kashmir in Central Asia as a “buffer state” [SHAIKHDOM] under the patronage of Shaikh Abdullah. In this endeavour he was definitely encouraged by Washington and other imperialist forces. His behavior put the Indian authorities on the horns of dilemma . He even spurned appeals from Nehru, who felt betrayed and robbed. This was the real character of Shaikh Abdullah. He also began to talk about requirement of holding plebiscite. Dr Karan Singh has observed in his book 'Heir Apparent' that "Plebiscite being the watch word at that time, this became the trump card in the hands of Sheikh Abdullah. As the man who was supposed to win the plebiscite for India, he could demand his pound of flesh". With these activities of Shaikh Abdullah, people of Jammu and Ladakh felt betrayed and abandoned. The Kashmiri Pandits were already on his ‘hit list’. Their land estates and feudal ownerships were already abolished, government institutions and jobs were closed to them and they were taunted for being nationalists. In a meeting, Karan Singh [Sadar-i-Riyasat] told Nehru "I was shocked and astounded to gather from a private meeting with Shaikh Abdullah that he seems to have decided to go back upon solemn agreements which he has concluded with India and upon his clear commitments.”

On 8th August, 1953, the Cabinet Members of the Shaikh Abdullah Ministry submitted a ‘Joint Memorandum’ to the Head of the State [Sadar-i-Riyasat], which said:

“You will kindly recall that in the course of tile meeting of the Cabinet, held on August 7, 1953, and on many other occasions previously, we brought to your notice that certain pronounced tendencies indicating a very sharp divergence of opinion had become manifest in our approach to the broad policies which from the basis of the Government and the administration. Contrary to the normal practice of a uniform policy in the conduct of the administration, it has become increasingly clear that Mr. Beg and you, in utter disregard of the opinion of your colleagues and without their consultation make public pronouncements which flout to principle of joint responsibility. Since the formation of the present Government, in spite of the constant endeavour of your colleagues to secure maximum agreement and unity in the formation and execution of essential policies in accordance with the mandate given by the people, you have frequently adopted certain arbitrary measures complete denial of the right of expression of opinion of even your own colleagues in the handling both of external and internal affairs of the State.

Most of these measures and policies have been self-contradictory and inconsistent, leading to serious complications. After the establishment of the Legislative Assembly, we have expected that our joint responsibility and collective functioning as a Cabinet would be governed by well-established parliamentary practices. But we regret to observe that you have not only disregarded the wishes of your colleagues in the Cabinet but have acted in the Legislative Assembly also in a manner which denied the right of freely expressing their opinions to the representatives of the people in regard to the basic policies pursued by the Government. In the past, even though occasions have arisen when we seriously opposed certain measures which affected the efficient and smooth functioning of the administration we refrained from bringing matter to a head by making concession to y our views in the interests of securing harmony and concord in the working of the Government. Unfortunately, however, this spirit of accommodation has been misconstrued by you and you have consequently adopted an attitude which is far from democratic and indicates a tendency towards making arbitrary use of power and position. Your attitude with regard to the political and economic policies of the Government has given rise to a great deal of confusion in the public mind and serious dislocation in economic life of large sections of the people. For quite some time, now, a factional tendency has been evident in the Cabinet, which has been responsible for a progressive deterioration in the administration. Consequently, various ameliorative measures propos-ed by the members of the Cabinet in good faith have not been implemented honestly. Above all, there has been a singular failure to exercise vigilance and proper supervision in the day to day functioning of the administration which has produced corruption, nepotism, inefficiency and wanton wastage of public resources in most sphere of Government activity. All these facts of omission and commission have inevitably created large-scale discontent in various part of the State.

All along the Government has lacked a sense of uniformity and direction in its plans and programme. Time and again, we have brought to your notice the imperative need of arresting this process of deterioration in the administration. We attempted to represent the feelings of various sections of the people and urgent necessity of undertaking immediate measures for the amelioration of these conditions. But we regret to say that you not only disregarded all our opinions in this respect, but have been ignored the recommendations of the Wazir Committee, which had been set up by the Government to inquire into a number of grievances of the people.

Consequently, the political uncertainty has been accentuated with the result that our economy has been thrown Into stagnation, which has impoverished large masses of people, when the tourist traffic showed healthy improvement last year and this year, you destroyed public confidence though your irresponsible utterances.

The events of the last few months have, in particular, thrown the state in the midst of a severe crisis. The repercussions of this crisis are bound to be serious and far-reaching. We regret to state that yore, as the head of the Government, have not only failed to take note of the situation but have, by your words and deeds. accentuated the tension. you have consistently refused to acknowledge responsibilities that devolve on you as the Prime Minister of the State by not following the declared policies that form the basis of the Government. You have tended to act in a manner that 1las generated uncertainty, suspense and doubt in the minds of the people of the State in general and of those in Jammu and Ladakh in particular. All these factors have combined to strengthen the disruptionist forces seeking the disintegration of the State.

As is well known, the unprovoked aggression from Pakistan had put our very national existence at stake. In that critical hour of crisis, all of us jointly approached India for help and requested her to accept the accession of the State and assist us in repelling the aggression and restoring peaceful conditions in the State. The united will of the people stood solidly behind this act of Kashmir's accession to India. While accepting our request, the Government of India assured us of the right of self-determination for our people. After the convening of the Constituent Assembly, certain inescapable elaborations of the State's relationship with India were defined in the Delhi Agreement, of which you were the Chief Architect on our behalf. Your stand was unanimously endorsed by the Government, the National Conference, the Indian Parliament and the Constituent Assembly of the State. But you have not only deliberately delayed implementation of the agreements on these matters which form the sheet-anchor of our policy, but have purposefully and openly denounced these in public. You have thus arbitrarily sought to precipitate a rupture in the relationship of the State with India. Though it is true that the people of the State have the ultimate right to decide their future, the conditions of chaos and confusion which are being engineered today by you are bound to be fatal for the exercise of the right of self-determination by our people. Under these circumstances what seems inevitable is that interested foreign powers may well take advantage of and exploit the situation for their own selfish purpose. Mr. M.A. Beg has persistently been following policies of narrow sectarianism, and communalism, which have seriously undermined the the oneness of the State. Unfortunately, you have been lending your support to his policies in the Cabinet and his activities in public. This has generated bitter feelings of suspicion and doubt in the minds of the people of various constituent units of the State. You have connived at all these unfortunate happenings and thus strengthened and encouraged the forces of disruption. The result is that unity and the secular character, the two fundamental aspects of our State, stand threatened today.

We have been constantly urging upon you to put an end to these unhealthy tendencies and to under take unitedly measures for restoring the moral of the people. In spite of our best intentions, we have failed in our efforts.

It is, therefore, with great pain that we have to inform you of our conclusion that the Cabinet, constituted as it is at present and lacking as it does the unity of purpose and action, has lost the confidence of the people in its ability to give them a clean, efficient and healthy administration.”

Sadar-i-Riyasat wanted Shaikh Abdullah to take immediate action and restore confidence in the Council of Minister. But he ignored the developments with the result his government was dissolved. Sadar-i-Riyasat wrote to Shaikh on 8th August, 1953:

“You will recall that in the course of our meeting today, I conveyed to you my deep concern at the serious differences which exist in your Cabinet. I impressed upon you the immediate necessity for restoring harmony and unity or purpose among the members of the Cabinet in the execution of its policies. You were, however, unable to assure me that these acute differences could be remedied.

This conflict within the Cabinet has for a considerable time been causing great confusion and apprehension in the minds of the people of the State. The situation has reached an unprecedented crisis with the effect that three or your four Cabinet colleagues have, in a memorandum to you, a copy of which they have sent to me, expressed their complete dissatisfaction with your action and policies, which have lost the present Cabinet and confidence of the people. This document clearly indicates that the divergence with in your Cabinet has reached proportions in which the unity prosperity and stability of the State are gravely jeopardised.

When we met today, I further suggested to you that an emergency meeting of the cabinet should be held at my residence this evening so that we could jointly explore the possibilities of securing a stable, unified and efficient Government for the country. But to my regret you evaded the issue.

Under these conditions, I, as Head of the State, have been forced to the conclusion that the present Cabinet cannot continue in Office any longer and hence, I regret to inform you that I have dissolved the Council of Ministers headed by you A copy of my order in this connection is attached herewith.

I need hardly add how deeply distressed I was at having to take this action, but the vital interests of the people of the State, which it is my duty to safeguard, leave me no alternative. I trust that this will in no way affect the mutual regard and cordial feelings we have for each other.”

Shaikh Abdullah was terminated as PREMIER of Jammu and Kashmir State and in this connection a formal order was issued by the Sadar-i-Riyasat on August 8, 1953:

“Where as for some months I have been noticing with growing concern that there have existed acute differences of opinion between members of the Government on basic issues -political, economic and administrative-affecting the vital interests of the State;

And whereas members of the Government have been publicly expressing sharply conflicting points of view regarding these matters;

And whereas on these fundamental issues the view of a majority of the members the Cabinet are sharply opposed to the view held by the Prime Minister and one of his colleagues;

And whereas efforts to work in harmony and pull together as a team having failed, and the majority in the Cabinet has expressed that, lacking as it does in unity of purpose and Action, the present Cabinet has lost the confidence of the people;

And whereas the economic distress of the people has considerably increased which needs prompt and serious attention;

And whereas a state has reached in which the very process of honest and efficient administration has become impracticable;

And whereas finally, the functioning of the present Cabinet on the basis of joint responsibility has become impossible and the resultant conflicts have gravely jeopardised the unity, prosperity and stability of the State;

I, Karan Singh, Sadar-i-Riyasat, functioning in the interests of the people of the State, who have reposed the responsibility and authority of the Headship of the State in me, do hereby dismiss Shaikh Mohammad Abdullah from the Prime Ministership of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and consequently the Council of Ministers headed by him is dissolved forthwith.”

Shaikh Abdullah was immediately arrested. Nehru wrote to Shaikh in Sept. 1953 "To me, it has been a major surprise that the settlement arrived at between us should be by-passed, repudiated. That strikes at the root of all confidence. My honour is bound up with my word".
Dr Satish Ganjoo was born on May 1, 1956, to Shree Omkarnath Ganjoo and Smt Sheela Ganjoo in the Saffron Valley of Kashmir. He obtained the coveted academic degrees of M.Phil (1983) and Ph.D (1987) in Modern History and International Relations from the University of Kashmir. He held the distinguished faculty position in Govt. Degree College, Baramulla (Kashmir), Centre for Advance Study in Education and Technology, Srinagar (Kmr), CASET Post Graduate Evening College, Srinagar (Kmr) and the Centre of Central. Asian Studies, University of Kashmir. Now he is working as Head and Senior Faculty Member at the Post Graduate Dept. of History, Ramgarhia P G College (GNDU) Phagwra (Pb), with the additional charge of the Dept. of Computer Sciences and Information Technology.
Dr. Ganjoo developed the excellent potential for research and published a number of books on diverse topics of history, politics and international relations. Ignoring the pain and agony of migration from his motherland because of political turmoil, he exclusively worked on Islamic Studies with all devotion and dedication. His widely acknowledged books include :

1. Afghanistan’s Struggle for Resurgence
2. Soviet Afghan Relations
3. Kashmir Politics
4. Muslim Freedom Fighters of India (in 3 vols)
5. Economics System in Islam
6. Glimpses of Islamic World
7. Prophet Muhammad
8. Wailing Shadows in Kashmir (Anmol Publications, New Delhi)
9. Dictionary of History

Besides Dr. Ganjoo is involved in different interdisciplinary research projects, participated in several seminars and wrote about sixteen research papers. His name was recommended for the Soviet Land Nehru Award (1991) and received recognition from prestigious NGOs --- Rashtriya Gaurav Award (2004), Best Citizen of India Award (2005), Vijay Shree Award (2005). He is the member of the Arts and Social Sciences Faculty, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar; and, the life member of the Kashmir Education, Culture and Science Society.
Copyrights © 2007 Shehjar online and Any content, including but not limited to text, software, music, sound, photographs, video, graphics or other material contained may not be modified, copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, or distributed in any form or context without written permission. Terms & Conditions.
The views expressed are solely the author's and not necessarily the views of Shehjar or its owners. Content and posts from such authors are provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confer no rights. The material and information provided iare for general information only and should not, in any respect, be relied on as professional advice. Neither nor represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information displayed, uploaded, or distributed through the Service by any user, information provider or any other person or entity. You acknowledge that any reliance upon any such opinion, advice, statement, memorandum, or information shall be at your sole risk.
I had a cursory look at your write-up(confusion after 1947)). I. Do not suppose that it makes an objective reading. There are many positives so far Shaikh abdullah's persona is concerned. during Lok Sabha elections in Kashmir. At one of his pubic meetings at Bijhbehara he was candid enough to say that he was never a member of Mhaz-e-Raishumari I.e Plebiscite Front. His two words speak a lot about the confusion created.
Added By Tej kishen Raina
Great to document the history of Kashmir. Kudos to Satish Ganjoo for such a beautiful writeup.
Added By Vinod Munshi