A Historic Speech August 7th, 1952

(Text of the speech made by Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, M.P. and President of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh in Lok Sabha on 7th August 1952 during a debate on ''The Kashmir Issue.")

I agree with the Prime Minister that the matter of Kashmir is a highly complicated one and each one of us, whatever may be his point of view, must approach this problem from a constructive stand-point. I cannot share the view that we are creating a new heaven and a new earth by aceepting the scheme which has been placed before the House on the motion of the Prime Minister. The question can be divided into two parts. One relates to the international complications arising out of Kashmir and the other relates to the arrangements that have to be made between Kashmir and ourselves regarding the future Constitution of Kashmir.

It has, been said that I was a party when the decision was taken to refer the Kashmir issue to the U. N. O. That is an obvious fact. I have no right and I do not wish to disclose the extraordinary circumstances under which that decision was taken and the great expectations which the Government of India had on that occasion, but it is a matter of common knowledge that we have not got fair treatment from the United Nations which we had expected. We did not go to the U. N. O. with regard to the question of accession, because accession then was an established fact. We went there for the purpose of getting a quick decision from the U. N. O. regarding the raids which were then taking place by persons behind whom there was Pakistan Government. The raiders merely acted on behalf of somebody else..Some-how, we should witlndraw ourselves, so far as consideration of the Kashmir case is concerned, from the U. N. O.We can tell them respectfully that we have had enough of the U. N. O. and let us now consider and try to settle tine matter through our own eftorts. I am not suggesting that India should withdraw from the U. N. O. The only matter regarding which the dispute still continues is about the one-third territory of Kashmir which is in the occupation of the enemy. The Prime Minister said today that portion is there. It is a matter for national humiliation. We say that Kashmir is a part of india. It is so. so, a part of India is today in the occupation of the enemy and we are peace-lovers, no doubt. But peace- lovers to what extent ? - that we will even allows portion of our territory to be occupied by the enemy ? Of course the prime Minister said : thus far and no further. If the raiders enter into any part of Kashmir, he held out a threat of war not in relation to Pakistan and Kashmir, but war on a bigger scale between India and Pakistan.

Is there any possibility of our getting back this territory? We shall not get it through the efforts of the United Nations : we shall not get it through peaceful methods, by negotiations with Pakistan. That means we lose it, unless we use force and the Prime Minister is unwilling to do so. Let us face facts-are we prepared to lose it ?

It has been said that there is some provision in the Constitution, that we are bound by the pledges which have been given. Pledges ? Undoubtedly, so many pledges we have given We gave a pledge to Hyderabad. Did we not say that there would be a Constituent Assembly for Hyderabad. It was followed by another pledge that the future of Hyderabad would be decided by the Legislative Assembly of Hyderabad But is not Hyderabad already a part of the Indian Union ? We gave pledges also to those prances whom we are liquidating in different forms today. If we talk of pledges we have given pledges on many other occasions. We gave pledges to the minorities in East Bengal. That was given after the attainment of independence. The Prime Minister said the other day that even if Kashmir had not acceded to India, when Kashmir was attacked by the raiders, on humanitarian grounds the Indian army could have marched to Kashmir and protected the distressed and oppressed. I felt proud. But if I make a similar statement, or even a similar suggestion for the purpose of saving the lives and honour of nine million of our fellow brethren and sisters-through whose sacrifices to some extent at least freedom has been achieved, I am a communalist, I am a reactionary I am a war-monger!

What was the set-up we accepted when the British withdrew from India ? There was the indian India divided into India and Pakistan and there was, if I may call it, the Princely india. Every one of those five hundred rulers got theoretical independence and they need have acceded to india only with relation to three subjects. So far as the rest was concerned it was purely voluntary.That was the pattern which we accepted from the British Government. So far as the 498 States were concerned, they came to india, acceded to India on the 14th August 1947 in relation to three subjects only, but still it was accession, full accession. Later on, they all came in relation to all these subjects and were gradually absorbed in the Constitution of India that we have passed. Supposing some sort of fulfilment of the pledge that we are thinking of so literally in relation to Kashmir, was demanded by these States, would we have agreed to give that? We would not have because that would have destroyed india. But there was a different approach to the solution of those problems.

They were made to feel that in the interest of India, in their interest, in the interest of mutual progress, they will have to accept this Constitution that we are preparing and the Constitution made elaborate provisions for nationally absorbing them into its fabric, No coercion; no compulsion.They were made to feel that they could get what they wanted from his Constitution.

May I ask-was not Sheikh Abdullah party to this Constitution? He was a Member of the Constituent Assembly; but he is asking for special treatment. Did he not agree to accept this Constitution in relation to the rest of India, including 497 States. It is good enough for all of them, why should it not be good enough for him in Kashmir?

What is the provision we have made in the Constitution? Article 373-read it and read the speech of Shri Gopalaswami Ayyangar when he moved the adoption of that extraordinary provision.What was the position then? All the other States had come into the picture. Kashmir could not because of special reasons. They were : firstly the matter was in the hands of the Security Council, secondly, there was war; thirdly, a portion of Kashmir territory was in the hands of the enemy and lastly an assurance had been given to Kashmir that Constituent Assembly would be allowed to be formed and the wishes of the people of Kashmir ascertained through a plebiscite. Those were the factors that had yet to be fulfilled and that was why a permanent decision could not be taken. It was a temporary provision.

He said categorically that he and also the Kashmir Government hoped that Jammu and Kashmir would accede to lndia just as any other State has done and accept the provision of the Constitution. It is not a question of compulsion on our part. The Constitution of India does not say that whatever the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir would ask for india would give. That is not the provision. The provision is-agreement, consent.

Certain proposals have been made today. Some of us do not like them. What are we to do? If we talk we are reactionaries we are communalists, we are enemies. If we keep quiet and if a catastrophe comes after a year, then you were a party to it, you kept quiet-therefore, you are estopped from saying anything.

I am most anxious, as anxious as anybody else that we should have an honourable, peaceful settlement, with Kashmir.
We must be able to show that India is not only in theory, but also in fact, a country where Hindus, Muslims, Christians and everyone will be able to live without fear and with equality of rights. That is the Constitution that we have framed and which we propose to apply rigorously and scrupulously. There may be some demands to the contrary here and there. But do not regard that, whenever an attack is made on certain matters of policy, some narrow, sectarian, communal motive is prompting us. Rather it is the fear that history may repeat itself. It is the fear that what you are going to do may lead to the 'Balkanisation' of India, may lead to the strengthening of the hands of those who do not want to see a strong United India, may lead to the strengthening of those who do not believe that India is a nation but is a combination of separate nationalities.That is the danger.

Now, what is it that Sheikh Abdullah has asked for ? He has asked for certain changes to be made in the Constitution. Let us proceed coolly cautiously without any heat or excitement. Let us examine each of them and ask him and ask ourselves : if we make an allowance in respect of these matters do we hurt India, do we strengthen Kashmir ? That will be my approach. We want to come to an agreement, an agreement which will make impossible for India to retain her unity and Kashmir to retain her separate existence from Pakistan and be merged with India. Since when did the trouble start ? Let us look at It dispassionately Since Shelkh Abdullah's return from Parts some time ago statements started to be made by him which disturbed us. Even then we did not speak out His first statement he made In an interview which he gave when he was abroad about his vision of an Independent Kashmir And then when he came he amplified it, then again retracted from It and gave an explanation, and then the speeches which he has made during the last few months were of a disturbing character If he feels that his safety lies In remaining out of India, well, let him say so, we will be sorry for it, but may become Inevitable But if he feels honestly otherwise, as I have always hoped and washed, then certainly It is for him also to explain why he wants these alterations to be made

...... sheikh Abdullah spoke in the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir, about three or four months ago, words which have not been withdrawn, but words which created a good deal of misgivings in the minds of all Indians irrespective of party affiliations. I do not know whether the Prime Minister saw this : We are a hundred percent sovereign body. No country can put spokes in the wheel of our progress.Neither the Indian Parliament nor any other Parliament outside the State has any jurisdiction over our State."

It is an ominous statement.

Let Sheikh Abdullah declare that he accepts the Sovereignty of this Parliament There cannot be two Sovereign Parliaments in India You talk of Kashmir being a part of india, and Sheikh Abdullah talks of a Sovereign Parliament for Kashmir It is inconsistent It Is contradictory This Parliament does not mean a few of us here who are opposing this. This Parliament includes a majority of people who will not be swayed by any small considerations. And why should he be afraid of accepting the Sovereignty of this Parliament of Free India ? Secondly, It is not a matter of changing the provisions of the Constitution by the President's order Let us look at some of the changes which are being sought for We are supporters of the Maharaja ! That is what is said against us I have never met the Maharaja I do not know him personally We are not supporters of this Maharaja, or of any Maharaja as such But the Maharaja is there not by his own free will The Parliament of India, the Constitution has made him what he is, namely, the constitutional head of Jammu and Kashmir. And what is the Irony ? At present Sheikh Abdullah's Government Is responsible to this Maharaja according to the Constitution, responsible to one who Is being described as a wretched fellow who has to be turned out lock, stock and barrel The Maharaja is there as a constitutional head. If you feel that this should be taken out, change your Constitution Say that there will be no hereditary Rajpramukhs. It is a matter worthy of consideration Let us consider It But see the way in which it has been put a Hindu Maharaja is being removed That is one of the war cries-in Pakistan. But who finished the royal powers of Hindu Maharajas ? Not Sheikh Abdullah, but the Constitution of Free India. We did it. We said that no ruler would have any extraordinary powers, that he will be just head of the government which may be technically responsible to him but later on responsible to an elected legislature. But now great credit is being taken that a unique performance is being done in Kashmir. In every speech of his he gave it : the Maharaja, the Dogra raj is being finished. Is that a propaganda ? Is that necessary? You are flogging a dead horse. It is finished. What is the use of saying it ?

What about the elected Governor ? ..... There was very special reason why in order to retain the unity of India and contact between the Centre and all the States the Governor should be nominated by the President. You just ignore these basic points because Sheikh Abdullah says : 'I want an elected head now.' Why can you not tell him and others what you have done in the Constitution, that originally we provided for an elected Governor but after a good deal of thought we did away with that ? Even then I say if today in your wisdom you feel that an elected head is a necessity and it will help you, consider it. Bring it up as a specific proposal. Let us discuss the pros and cons of it. But suddenly my friend Mr Hiren Mukerjee says head everywhere. Are you going to have elected heads everywhere? In fact, as things are happening we may abolish Governors altogether Governorships are often reserved for various classes of persons-disappointed, defeated, rejected, unwanted Ministers and so forth. We need not have this class at all. Or, if you want to have them, have them. I am not particularly People are clamouring for an elected head. People are clamouring for an elected interested. But this is a change for which no justification is given.

1

2

Next..