17021958 Statement of Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah issued from New Delhi on February 17, 1958.
17021958 Statement of Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah issued from New Delhi on February 17, 1958.
Since my release after 4 years' detention. I have tried to explain my viewpoint and possible solution in regard to various problems facing the political future of the State. With sufficient clarity, I hope, I have succeeded in elucidating the following points:
(a) So long as the final decision about the future disposition of Jammu and Kashmir State is not arrived at, the political uncertainty, economic distress and other mental strain. and the miseries which the people of the State are facing at present, cannot terminate.
(b) The existing strained relations between India and Pakistan are not only a source of great danger to the solidarity of Asia, but also contribute to the ruin of the people of the State. The dispute over Kashmir is one. of the main contributing factors to these strained relations.
(c) The ultimate decision with regard to the future affiliation. of the State vests with the people and can only be achieved by allowing them to exercise their right of self determination under impartial international supervision, in accordance with the universally recognized methods as has been already agreed to by the parties concerned or is otherwise acceptable to all.
I am deeply sorry that in order to befog my views from the public, interested people have resorted, right from 1953, to a campaign of falsehood and every attempt is being made at misrepresentation and distortion. These people wish to keep the Kashmir issue hanging in order to exploit it to serve their own ends in spite of the fact that the progress of their Motherland and international peace and amity insistently demand its immediate solution.
Those who are opposed to a satisfactory final settlement of this problem falsely charged me, five years ago, as having conspired with a foreign power. Now since my release a campaign has been started by these very people to depict me as a communalist for obvious reasons. As the charge of foreign conspiracy I could not be substantiated, despite expiry of five years, an attempt is now being made to fabricate the charge of communalism against me so that public opinion in India and elsewhere may be deceived afresh, and the people's feelings and sympathy for me as a victim of persecution may be affected.
Another object seems to be a futile attempt on the part of these people to intimidate and coerce me into silence. I am conscious of the fact that these people have at their command services of the press, power, money and other resources with the help of which they are able to present falsehood as truth. On the other hand such facilities are denied to me. Even so I have no doubt in my mind that my effort to end this long standing dispute about Kashmir can have no relation to communalism. This effort, in fact, is a great service to all those who have been facing untold miseries during the last ten years because of this dispute having remained unsolved. Who can deny the reality that failure to end this dispute is not only a source of distress and misery to the Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir but is a cause of anxiety and uncertainty to the entire population of the State? A solution of this dispute will not only contribute to the strengthening of peace and security throughout Asia but will heal up a festering sore which has been seeping into the very vitals of India and Pakistan. It is, therefore, for any intelligent man to judge whether it is fair to equate with communalism any endeavour to help solve this dispute. I firmly believe that real secularism is the soul of democracy but I am unable to understand how the demand for the final settlement of the dispute in regard to the accession of the Jammu and Kashmir State in accordance with the wishes of the people does in any way infringe any principle of secularism.
It is not the first time that I am charged with communalism. During the last 27 years a large section of the press in North India often brought such charges against me and every time facts and events proved them false. Many incidents in the Freedom Movement of our State bear witness to the fact that in 1931 this section of the press went so far as to allege that I aspired to be the Sultan of Kashmir and that a crown was ready in the Jamia Masjid, Srinagar, to be placed on my head at the opportune moment. Ultimately. However, truth triumphed and the National Movement spread throughout the State. Later, these charges were repeated during the "Quit Kashmir Movement" But when the practical test came in 1947, these were proved not only false and malicious but the world also came to appreciate that the attitude taken up by the Muslims of Kashmir in safeguarding life, honour and property of their non Muslim brethren was unparalleled throughout the sub-continent. Today in 1958, the same disruptive elements are again at their old game, and surprisingly enough, they include even those whose hands were besmeared, in 1947, with the innocent blood of their neighbours and who celebrated with great joy and distribution of sweets the brutal assassination of Mahatama Gandhi. Nevertheless, I feel sure that even this fresh attempt to malign me will also end in failure and fellow country-men belonging to the minorities will find me, as ever, their best friend, well wisher and protector of their legitimate rights. My past record should be a sufficient guarantee for anyone to judge my future behaviour. I do not, therefore, wish to waste my time and that of my country-men in putting up a defence against these slanderous accusations. When the dust raised by the propaganda of the interested people settles down, my fellow country-men will view me in the light of their past experience of me and events which have now become part of history, and will refuse to fall prey to such nefarious propaganda. The real secularism consists in safeguarding the legitimate rights of both the majority and minority communities. Happily the majority community in the State never considered the protection of the minorities as communalism and I hope and trust that the minority communities of this State will similarly not view the protection of the legitimate rights of the majority community as communalism.
I am being accused of break of pledge in support of the accession of the State to India. With all the force at my command, I repudiate this allegation and submit that the responsibility for the breach of the pledges rests elsewhere. A pledge is not a one-sided process; in regard to the accession of Kashmir the Governments of India and Kashmir accepted certain responsibilities and obligations but, unfortunately, the former did not fulfil their share in spite of the best endeavours of the Kashmir Government to persuade them to do so. When the charge of the breach of faith is, therefore, levelled against me, I have a right to pose the question as to where lies the responsibility for not implementing the promises and assurances given by the Government of India to the State of Jammu and Kashmir from the date of tribal raid till my arrest in 1953.
Much propaganda is being made out of the fact that in November 1947, I pledged my support to Pandit Nehru in a mass meeting held at Lal Chowk in Srinagar. But with this, one should not forget what Panditji said a few minutes earlier. Explaining the Government of India policy, he stated that:
"It must be remembered that the struggle in Kashmir is a struggle of the people of Kashmir under popular leadership against the invader. We have come to your help at this critical hour. Our forces are here simply to defend your country against the raiders and as soon as Kashmir is free from the invader, our troops will have no further necessity to remain here and you will be free to determine your future in accordance with your wishes..."
A few days before the Lal Chowk meeting, announcing the Government of India policy, Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, in his broadcast from New Delhi on the 2nd November, 1947, said: "We are anxious not to finalize anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity to be given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It was for them ultimately to decide. And let me make it clear that it has been our policy all along that where there is a dispute about accession of a State to either Dominion, the accession must be made by the people of that State. It was in accordance with this policy that we have added a proviso to the Instrument of Accession of Kashmir."
When the Constitution of India was finalized, the State of Jammu and Kashmir was given the status of an autonomous State in all matters except (a) Defence, (b) Foreign Affairs and (c) Communications (Section 370 of the Indian Constitution). This was an inviolable pledge.
May I ask, as to where all these promises and assurances stand today and who is responsible for breaking them? My illegal and unconstitutional dismissal from Premiership and my long detention without trial are in themselves the most glaring examples of the value attached to pledges and solemn assurances.
I am also blamed by my detractors as to why I do not consider the decision taken by the Kashmir Consembly regarding the accession as final. In this connection, the reality should not be lost sight of that the Government of India themselves have not accepted the decision of the Consembly regarding accession as final. The late Sir B.N. Rao in the capacity of the leader of the Indian Delegation before the Security Council declared on March 12th, 1951: "My Government's view is that while the Consembly may, if it desires, express an opinion on this question, it can make no decision on it." And again on 29th March, 1951 he declared that "the Consembly cannot physically be prevented from expressing its opinion on this question if it so chooses, but this opinion will not bind my Government nor prejudice the position of this Council." Consequently the Security Council passed the following resolution on 30th March, 1951
"Observing that the Governments of India and Pakistan have accepted the provisions of United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (U.N.C.I.P.) resolutions of 13th August, 1948, and 5th January, 1949, and have reaffirmed their desire that the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations;
"Observing that on 27th October, 1950, the General. Council of the All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference adopted a resolution recommending the convening of a Constituent Assembly for the purpose of determining the future shape and affiliations of the State of Jammu and Kashmir;
"Observing further from statements of responsible authorities that action is proposed to convene such a Constituent Assembly and that the area from which such a Constituent Assembly would be elected is only a part of the whole territory of Jammu and Kashmir;
"Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned. of the principle embodied in the Security Council resolutions of 21st April, 1948, 3rd June, 1948, and 14th March, 1950, and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) resolutions of 13th August, 1948, and 5th January, 1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations;
"Affirming that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of the All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, and any action that Assembly might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof, would not consti tute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle."
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, while answering a question on the subject in the Indian Parliament in 1955, declared the decision of the Consembly regarding the accession as unilateral and, therefore, of no consequence to resolve this international dispute on Kashmir. The decision of this Assembly cannot, moreover, be viewed in isolation and out of the context of historical events that followed. The question is not the decision but as to what were the means by which it was secured. A period of five years elapsed between the date of convening of the Consembly and taking a final decision on the accession issue. The Consembly, which enjoyed popular support in 1951 on this side of the "Cease-fire Line" , forfeited the confidence due to the events that took place on 9th August, 1953, and thereafter. The front rank members of the body were put in prison and debarred from participating in the proceedings of the House. Those who were not in prison were forced into submission by threats of persecution and imprisonment and irresistible temptations were thrown in their way. Consequently, the masses lost faith in them as there was no contact between those members and their constituents. The fact cannot be ignored that before the constitution was finalized, the Leader of the House was arrested under a deeply-laid conspiracy and when the masses protested against this illegal and unconstitutional act, a reign of terror was let loose and hundreds of men, women and children were shot down in cold blood and this continued for months together. A period of four years was spent in making the members of the Assembly toe the line of the coup stagers. Such of the members as did not submit were kept in jail and the constitution declared passed.
Even though in detention, yet led by national interests, from time to time I tried to warn all concerned against the dangerous consequences of allowing the Constituent Assembly to be used for group conflicts of the National Conference. In telegram on 30th September, 1951, I asked the President of the Constituent Assembly to allow me to be heard by the Assembly before the "vote of confidence" in coup stagers was considered. Then again when the constitution was going to be finalized, on 16-8-56 I wrote to him saying:
"By 9th August action as well as by the long record of black deeds in and outside the House, the present Government and the Assembly have completely forfeit the confidence of the electorate and they no longer represent the political and economic aspiration of the people. It will be the height of treachery if such a body sits to frame a fundamental law for the people and their future generations. Nothing can be worse than a betrayal of their aspirations. I feel therefore, duty-bound to ask you to desist from such a course of action..."
Then on 24th October, 1956, my colleague, Mirza Mohammed Afzal Beg, addressing the Constituent Assembly warningly stated:
"...This House is not competent to finalize the question of accession or frame the constitution because it has lost the confidence of the people..."
Summary rejection of all these warnings later on compelled him and other M.L.A's to boycott the Constituent Assembly.
Therefore, whatever this Assembly did, in the name of constitution, after the coup of 9th August, 1953, has hardly any significance, In regard to a constitution of which this is the history and background, the framers may say what they like to please themselves but to expect the people to entertain respect for such a constitution or to consider it as a reflection of their aspirations is something which surpasses comprehension. Those who still assert that the decision of the Condemnably taken after 9th August, 1953, has the support of the people, should not be afraid of holding a plebiscite. They should rather welcome it.
In view of these circumstances, I fail to understand why and how my refusal to accept these decisions of the Condemnably could be taken as treasonable.
One of the most important objects underlying the entire political movement in the State has remained to secure the right of self-determination for the people of the State. Expression of the will of the people through a is the one formula which has been agreed upon by the parties concerned and in a mass of disagreements about details, this common denominator has held the field so far. The Security Council, also, has held that a plebiscite, conducted in a fair and free atmosphere under its own auspices, is a just solution to the problem consistent with the provisions of the United Nations Charter. This commitment has repeatedly been reaffirmed by the parties concerned.
The people of the State consider the formula of plebiscite as a clear interpretation of their long cherished aspirations and as a lasting solution to the complicated problem which has been facing them since 1947. Their political outlook is the product of the last 27 years' struggle whose sheet-anchor has ever remained the conviction that "sovereignty vests with the people" A State which was sold away for a cash consideration and remained in slavish subjugation for a century, naturally gave this demand the foremost importance and made the right of self-democratic set-up as its cardinal creed.
The Indian National Congress has throughout raised its voice in support of our demand and it was on the asis of this principle that the leaders of the Congress, in general, and Pandit Nehru in particular, extended cooperation and help to the Freedom Struggle of the State from its very inception. I may refer in this connection to the resolutions passed and the speeches delivered at the Annual Session of the All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference held at Sopore in 1945, in which Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulala Azad, Khan Abdu! Ghaffar Khan, Khan Abdul Samed Khan and other top ranking Congress leaders participated. In this session the people's demand for the right of self-determination formed the central theme of the resolutions passed.
The Congress leaders not only supported, all along, our demand for the right of self-determination, but also helped in organizing me in the "Quit Kashmir Case ''. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru did not only court arrest as a mark of his support to our struggle, but went to the extent of appearing as my counsel in the case, in collaboration with the late Mr. Asaf Ali and others. Subsequently, when the subcontinent was partitioned and the tribal raid took place, it was again in defence of this very right of self-determination that the Government of India agreed to send its armed forces to Kashmir. Simultaneously, the Government of India while accepting the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh on 26th October, 1947, laid down the condition that the accession was subject to ratification by the people.
Recognizing this constantly repeated demand of the people and their aspirations, Lord Mountbatten, Governor General of India, wrote to the Maharaja on 27th October, 1947: "In the special circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government has decided Sion of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. Consistently accept the access 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 the invader, the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people". These pledges were reiterated, through the years, in Parliament and outside. before the Security Council and in mass meetings here in Kashmir and elsewhere. If doubts were cast by uncharitable persons on the implementation of the promises and assurances given, those were silenced and emphatically rejected.
Then came a period when Governments of India and Pakistan tried to solve the Kashmir dispute by direct negotiations. In May, 1953 we in "National Conference were asked to weigh and suggest the various alternate proposals for the solution. On 9th June the following unanimous decision was taken by a High Level Committee of the National Conference and communicated to Panditji:
"As a result of discussion held in the course of various meetings, the following proposals only emerge as possible alternatives for an honourable and peaceful solution of the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan :
(a) Overall plebiscite with conditions as detailed in the minutes of the meeting dated 4.6.53.
(b) Independence of the whole State.
(c) Independence of the whole State with joint control of foreign affairs and defence. (d) Dixon plan with independence for the plebiscite area.
"Bakhshi (Ghulam Mohammed) Sahib was emphatically of the opinion that the proposal (d) above should be put up as first and the only practicable, advantageous and honourable solution to the dispute. Maulana Saeed, however, opined that the order of preference as given above should be adhered to."
Unfortunately, the authorities at the helm of affairs could not appreciate the value of this and no further progress took place. In the meantime, events took an ugly turn and the 9th August coup was staged, the story of which need not be related here.
It was as late as August, 1953, after my detention, that the two Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, after deliberating for a number of days in Delhi as to how best to resolve this dispute, reiterated in a joint communique their "firm opinion that this (Kashmir Question) should be settled in accordance with the wishes of the people of that state. The most feasible method of ascertaining the wishes of the people was by fair and impartial plebiscite."
Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammed, as Prime Minister of the State, in a press statement issued by him on 21st August, 1953, declared "I welcome the declaration of the two Prime Ministers in regard to the future disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of the principle of self determination. This declaration was finalized on behalf of the Government of India with our concurrence and has our unqualified support." The holding of a plebiscite is thus a solution which is not only consistent with the objectives of the Freedom Struggle of Kashmir and the Independence Movement of the Indian people but is one to which all concerned with the dispute have unequivocally committed themselves; time and again.
Quotations in the attached Appendix are only a few out of many to give an idea of the nature of the commitment on this subject. They have been given for the benefit of those who have the real good of the people of the sub-continent in their hearts and who earnestly desire a speedy solution of the long-standing dispute between the two neighbouring countries. My fervent appeal to them all is to help in resolving this deadlock keeping in view the past commitments and seeking a practicable solution that is honourable and satisfactory to all, thus helping in preserving peace and the advancing progress of the people of the sub-continent. The need of the day is not to get apprehensive of this but to approach it with boldness and with an open mind.