27021969 Statement of the Home Minister Y.B. Chavan in the Lok Sabha on press reports of the deplorable speech made by Sheikh Abdullah in Srinagar on 27th February 1969.
27021969 Statement of the Home Minister Y.B. Chavan in the Lok Sabha on press reports of the deplorable speech made by Sheikh Abdullah in Srinagar on 27th February 1969.
Government has seen press reports of the deplorable speech made by Sheikh Abdullah in Srinagar on 27th February in which among other things he is reported to have stated that if the Government of Jammu and Kashmir were to grant proprietary rights to refugees on evacuee property bloodshed would follow. He is also reported to have asked the Kashmiri youth to rise and seek what was due to them and said that the Pakistani youth had shown them the way. The Government of Jammu and Kashmir is closely examining the speech with a view to deciding whether it is actionable under the law.
I would like to add that the report that I just got on the tele printer from the Government of Kashmir is as follows. This is the free translation of it in English;
"We warn the Government that it is playing with fire and the Government of India wants to play a bloody drama here"
This is what he has said. I thought that I should bring this also to the notice of the House.
We know Sheikh Abdullah sometimes takes the opportunity to make some brave speeches here and there. Ultimately. we will have to make an assessment of what exactly he is likely to do. or not likely to do. It is on that assessment that we have to decide what action to take. In this matter, we are in very close contact with the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.
Shri Randhir Singh (Rohtak): Put him in jail again.
Shri Y B Chavan: No it is no use merely trying to dramatise the issue. I would request my hon friend from Haryana not to try to dramatise these things.
Mr. Speaker: We were talking about cross-breeding of cattle in Haryana a little while ago.
Shri Y B. Chavan: So that is one aspect.
The second aspect is concerning proprietary rights of those refugees who have come from the other side. Really speaking, the question is about giving them permanent proprietary rights over those lands. That is a matter of which the Jammu and Kashmir Government is seized. They are considering a Bill about this particular matter. It had been referred to a select committee and I think it has come back with a report. Some legal points are involved about which they are taking the view of the Attorney-General.
can say what, really speaking, the issue is. The Jammu and Kashmir Government has taken the position that this cannot be treated as evacuee property because these people moved to that area which we still claim as our own area. Therefore, it cannot be evacuee property. If at all this land is to be handed over to these people with permanent proprietary rights, it will have to be acquired. This particular matter, therefore, is under consideration. Unfortunately, Sheikh Abdullah, quite inconsistent with his reputation as a secular man, tried to communalise the issue. That is a very unfortunate part of it. That was why I said it was deplorable.
Shri Balraj Madhok (South Delhi): The hon. Minister has made a wrong statement. They have not gone to the Pakistan-occupied area; they have gone to Pakistan.
Shri Y.B. Chavan: It is not a question of the Government of India being silent or not being silent about certain things. This Commission was appointed by the Govern. ment of Jammu and Kashmir Naturally, in this matter, it is not right for the Government of India to rush with their views.
Shri N.R. Laskar (Karimgan): There is no doubt one fact, that Sheikh Abdullah is today an utterly frustrated man in India.
Shri Y.B. Chavan: In India.
Shri N R. Laskar: This has been more so because all of his attempts to force the Government of India to talk with him on the basis that Kashmir is not an integral part of India has completely failed. But one thing which is disturbing is that in the recent speech which he made, as the hon. The Minister rightly said, he has communalised the entire issue. I would like to know whether the Government is taking any step what sover so that he cannot spread communalism between people and people in that valley.
Shri Y.B. Chavan: I have already explained about the action to be taken in this matter. The only thing which we can do, we should do, is to keep close watch and make a proper assessment of the matter. Ultimately, whatever action has to be taken will have to be considered not in isolation of an individual, Sheikh Abdullah, but of the effect it will have on the situation in the Kashmir valley itself.
Shri A. Sreedharan (Badagara) : The hon. Home Minister has advised us not to dramatise the situation, and I do not want to dramatise it also, but this issue was raised on the floor of the House on a previous occasion, when the strong Home Minister of India stated that he was watching the situation in Kashmir closely and persistently, he was watching Sheikh Abdullah also, and he gave an assurance he was doing that. In the phraseology of a great author, his assurance came like the roar of a tiger, only to disappear like the quail of a snake. Here is a statement by Sheikh Abdullah. I am not worried merely about the law and order problem. I am worried about the image of this Government. When the Image of this Government is put forward before the entire world, we are all one, that is how I feel about it. Here is a man who called this Government a worthless Government, and only a docile Government run by a superannuated political party can tolerate it.
My question is this. Sheikh Abdullah wants to create an explosive situation. He has given a communal twist, and this is not merely a problem of Kashmir, it is a problem of the people of India. To face it merely from the point of view of law and order, I don't think is the proper solution. A popular movement has got to be built up in Kashmir to face it. In view of this fact will the Home Minister take steps to send an all-party parliamentary delegation to Kashmir to popularise the same that people have got to be careful about this communal twist?
Shri Y.B. Chavan: The hon. The member started with a very brave stand, and I thought he was going to make some revolutionary suggestion, but ultimately he brought a rat out of a mountain. He talked of tigers and snakes. He seems to be fond of snakes. But apart from that, as I have said, the only suggestion that he made was which is certainly very indisputable that to meet the situation there should be some popular movement. I entirely agree with him that there should
be a popular movement about it, and if hon. members want to take any deputation, certainly I will give them all the facilities.
Shri A. Sreedharan: My question was whether the Government of India was going to sponsor a delegation. I am an individual. If I want to go, I do not need your permission to go there.
Shri Y.B. Chavan: I have already replied to most of the Points that the hon. Membership has increased and I shall try to repeat one or two points. He asks whether we are taking any action on the recommendations of the National Integration Council which held its meeting in Srinagar on the use of temples, churches, mosques, etc. The hon. The Member is probably aware that such a Bill had been introduced in the House and it was referred to the Select Committee and the Select Committee had submitted its report during the last few days and it will be considered in Parliament. He has asked me about the Unlawful Activities Bill. There is some legal doubt whether it could be made applicable to Kashmir. We are introducing another Bill to make this point clear.
This is about the legal facts: whether these things should be made use of against any particular organisation or individual is a matter of judgment, as I said. About the Gajendragadkar Commission, again I would like to say that this was not appointed at the instance of the Government of India or the Home Minister. This Commission was appointed by the Jammu and Kashmir Government itself.
Mr. Speaker: Shri Madhu Limaye.
MR. Speaker: Order, order. I would not answer the notices on the floor of the House. (Interruption).
Mr. Speaker: It is not proper. I would not answer any notices given. Will you kindly sit down? I would not answer any notices,