01041961 In the Court of Mr. N.K. Hak, Special Magistrate, Jammu, State Versus M.M.A. Beg and Others.
In the Court of Mr. N.K. Hak, Special Magistrate, Jammu, State Versus M.M.A. Beg and Others.
Mr. Magistrate, Sir,
I have listened with due deference to the arguments of the learned Prosecution Counsel for over four weeks and have patiently borne slanderous expressions and insinuations hurled at me, my family, friends and colleagues over and again, the real object of which I do not propose to discuss here. One or two observations of the learned Counsel, however, call for an explanation.
On 1st April, 1961 the learned Counsel took an exception to my refusal to answer the questions put to me by the Court u/s 342 Cr. P.C. as well as to the reasons I had advanced for my attitude in my written statement. I had stated therein "very grave issues of far-reaching implications are involved which can affect not only the four million people of the State but also the people of the Indo-Pak sub-continent and even of Asia. Moreover, the personalities connected with this care are of considerable importance from the point of view of their power and influence."
The learned Counsel did not consider them at all a 'reason'. They seemed to him of 'flimsy character and he observed, "if there were grave issues then it was all the more important to explain them". The Counsel conveniently omitted to take the trouble of going through my whole statement, otherwise he would not have failed to notice the detailed reasons that I set out in my transfer petition to the Honble High Court in December, 1958, to which I made a prominent reference in my statement. I detailed out facts and their far reaching implications as well as the personalities involved, and made out a strong plea "in fairness and justice of a judicial probe scrupulously above board and in a free atmosphere by an eminent individual of high character and integrity, capable of exercising independence of judgment and action."
After having listened with utmost patience to the arguments of the learned Counsel and his personal comments, briefly mentioned above, I feel constrained to cautiously lift the curtain from some of the circumstances inherent in this Case, which urgently call for such an untainted judicial probe as I have indicated above, if it is intended to be fair and just not only to the accused, but our own conscience also. Impelled by the desire not to vitiate the atmosphere, I am speaking with extreme reticence. I repeat that the time has not yet come to unfold the tragic background story of the present Case. This is neither the proper forum nor will it serve any purpose here.
In working up his argument that the accused intended to overthrow the Government of the State in collaboration with Pakistan officials, the learned Counsel dragged in the Pak American Military Pact and tried to create an impression in the world that Pakistan was "mis-using the American aid in Kashmir." Apart from the serious repercussions of such an observation, it is patent that the introduction of such points in the argument does drag in high personalities and most important and delicate international issues. Am I expected to discuss them frankly in this forum with any grain of confidence. for a fair deal? Incidentally, the force of the learned Counsels argument, with all its condemnation of Pakistan running through, is bound to make contribution to the cold-war that unfortunately already exists between the two neighbouring
countries. It is the patriotic duty of everyone living in the sub-continent, to make every effort in lessening this cold-war atmosphere and try to create friendly relations between the two countries.
Addressing the recent Indo-Pak Cultural Conference in New Delhi, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, is reported to have said:
"We must not drift towards a cold-war attitude which is dangerous... Whatever the differences, they should be resolved by peaceful means."
No one would appreciate these words of the Prime Minister more than the people who live in this unfortunate State of Jammu and Kashmir, for it is they who have become the first casualty in this cold-war for the past more than a decade. I, therefore, extremely regret that Shri Pathak's argument has not done any justice to the wishes of the Prime Minister but has leashed out instead a fresh wave of cold-war which is bound to have its pernicious effects.
It is a matter of historical record that an intense wave of cold-war was started against Kashmir before the fateful day of the 9th August, 1953, of which I was the chief victim. Much of the activity was carried on under-ground and kept a close secret. By sheer twist of history, however, the curtain was lifted slightly by one of the collaborators recently. The Indian world is not unaware of the role played by the well known Indian journal, 'Blitz', during and after the coup-, d'etat of 1953. In its special issue of 25th February, 1961 on page 39, under the sub-title "How Blitz moulded the Kashmir Politics," the Editor writes:
"It can now be revealed that Editor Karanjia was invited to New Delhi by the late Rafi Ahmed Kidwai early in August 1953 and supplied with all the facts about the anti-national activities of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and Mirza Mohammad Afzal Beg. The Government desired Blitz to prepare public opinion in advance for the drastic action contemplated..." This gives a peep into the causes that led to the tragic events of 9th August 1953 and the powers and personalities involved in the matter. If a judicial trial can claim any impartiality or hope to inspire confidence, the Tribunal has had to be of such a high order as I indicated in the petition to the High Court. The ridicule of the learned Prosecution Counsel, notwithstanding, I contend that a Tribunal of a very high character and integrity, immune from even a semblance of influence from the highest power that be, is the very sine qua non in these proceedings, if they are to be fair.
Soon after my re-arrest under the Preventive Detention. On 29th April, 1958, the permanent representative of India at the United Nations, Shri Arthur Lal, wrote to the President of the Security Council on 11th June, 1958:
"...Since Sheikh Abdullah's arrest and detention in August 1953 he, his relatives and his associates including some of the accused (in the Conspiracy Case) decided to bring about the overthrow of the State Govt. established by law and to that end to enlist the support of and join hands with Pakistan agents. and officials. To achieve this object, accused, between August 9, 1953 and April 29, 1958, amongst themselves and with other persons, known and unknown, at Srinagar and diverse other places, both in and outside the State, conspired to overawe by means of criminal force, the Government of the State."
(i) "Sheikh Abdullah had been making public statements, calculated to inflame religious passions and seeking to create conditions of disorder and lawlessness and subversive. and sabotage activities in Kashmir."
The above information was supplied to the President of the Security Council in justification of my re-arrest in April 1958 and he was requested to circulate the letter to the other members of the Security Council as a Security Council document. The language used and the grounds set out in the above quotation are exactly the same as that used in the Paragraph 4 of the petition of complaint lodged by D.W. Mehra, Inspector-General of Police, Jammu and Kashmir, in this court on 21st May, 1958. It is pertinent to note that I was joined as an accused in the Case on 23rd October 1958, This pre-judged condemnation having emanated from the Chief Representative of Government of India at the United Nations, naturally demolished any ray of hope for a fair trial.
During the brief spell of my freedom in 1958, Shri Krishna Menon, Defence Minister of India, publicly warned me that the Indian Constitution would not give any protection to me if I questioned the State's integration with India. Addressing a public meeting in Andhra on 3rd February, 1958, he is reported to have said:
"If anybody in Kashmir today questioned the State's integration with India, he was guilty of treason. Anybody doing so ceased to be an Indian and thereby lost the protection of the Constitution and the law..." (The Statesman 4th February, 1958).
Thus the doors of all the organs of the State functioning under the Constitution were quite prematurely banged against me by one of the highest executive authorities in India. The Hon'ble Defence Minister could, with no stretch of imagination, be unaware of what was being cooked up against me when he made the above public statement, unless all this Case is a subsequent concoction.
In another of his public utterances at Madras in February 1958, Shri Menon is reported to have said:
"Those who oppose or deny Kashmir's accession to India are traitors and should leave the country." These statements, therefore, successfully vitiated and poisoned the atmosphere against me well in advance of time and smashed any hope to secure justice under the Indian Constitution. Is it fair to expect that I could have sustained confidence and faith to receive justice and fair play under such circumstances ?
There is yet another dignitary of Government of India who, without any qualms, indulged, albeit obliquely, in my condemnation while this enquiry is still pending against me. This gentleman is no less than Shri A.K. Sen, the Law Minister of the Government of India. During the debate on the Preventive Detention Act, in the Lok Sabha on 1st December, 1960, he questioned an honourable member's inferential reference to me amongst the "patriotic Indians' ', which clearly indicated the working of his mind. He, as a Law Minister, is controlling and directing the conduct of the prosecution in this case.
It is an open secret that the Government of India is behind this prosecution and is spending enormous amounts to finance it. On 18th March, 1961, the 'Hindustan Times' of Delhi disclosed that the Conspiracy Case "cost the Kashmir Government over three lacs, including Rs. 44,421.50 as the fee of the Counsel engaged by the State." But a large number of counsel and their juniors engaged to conduct the case from time to time must have cost tens of lacs of rupees so far. It is pertinent to ask, who is footing their bill ? Obviously it is the Government of India which has harnessed in the case the services of eminent counsel like Shri G.P. Mitter of Calcutta Shri G S. Pathak of Allahabad, Shri Nageshwar Prashad and Shri Pandey of Patna, and Shri Chaturvedi of Allahabad, not to mention their juniors. My own experience indicates that the services of each one of the above lawyers will not cost less than Bs, 2,000/-a day. The total financial effect can easily be estimated. Besides this, a Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Bureau, with several India Police officers as his assistants, has been attached with the case from its inception and appointed as a Special Prosecutor to conduct the day to day proceedings. Thus Government of India have put in their vast resources,, both financial and administrative, in this case in order to secure our conviction. The Government of Jammu and Kashmir is only a cover. With this interest in the matter by the Government of India how am I expected to believe that an ordinary magistrate in the State, or for that matter any court in India, will disregard the wishes and interests of the Government of India in this case and judge me squarely and fairly?
Shrimati Mridula Sarabhai, references about whom have been repeatedly made in this case, was detained in 1958 by the Government of India under the Preventive Detention Act. When her Habeas Corpus petition came up before the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India, while rejecting the petition, was reported by the Indian Express' of 25th November, 1958, to have observed, among other things, "each item of the acts alleged had to be judged in the light of the struggle going on between the two countries for Kashmir." Obviously the two countries referred to are India and Pakistan. It passes my comprehension how on earth a magistrate in the State is to take a detached view in regard to my alleged activities after having known the views of the highest judicial authority cited above. I am sure that the learned Prosecution Counsel is not unaware of all this. Hence his strenuous efforts to hook us up with the Pakistan Government and her officials.
In my transfer application to the Hon'ble High Court, I solicited that the inquiry in this case should take place in a completely independent atmosphere, free from all internal and external influences. I stressed that the enquiry officer should, in view of the circumstances of the case, be a person who can keep the scales of justice even between the parties without fear or favour. But in face of facts some of which I have set out above, it seems that I was asking for the moon (though that even is not impossible in these days of space travel).
Incidentally I might submit one more point in this context. The present Presiding Officer of the Court is a Magistrate appointed by the Government which was brought into being through the coup of 9th August, 1953, staged against me and my colleagues. In pursuance of that coup the Government headed by me was overthrown by treacherous and shady means, followed by violence and force, with the full backing of the Government of India. It is the self-same Government. which has selected and appointed the present Magistrate to enquire into the charge against me and other accused-the victims of 9th August Conspiracy-that we intended to overthrow by inal force, the Government established through the coup. I am not questioning the technical competence of the appointment of the Magistrate; but in justice and good conscience is it fair that the complainant should appoint the judge for his own cause and then expect the accused to have full confidence in the letter's impartiality? Therefore, if the proceedings of this court have continued to be stage-managed since the very start of the case, this position is perfectly understandable.
The absurdities of the prosecution case are so obvious and its inherent contradictions so indubitable that it deserves outright rejection by the court. Thus alone could the judiciary of the State, if it were really independent, redeem to a certain extent the reputation not only of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir but that of India also.
The prosecution story is that the accused conspired and "the chief aims of the conspiracy were to overthrow the Government of the State and to facilitate the wrongful annexation of the territory of the State by Pakistan.'' These imaginary and fantastic charges have been repeatedly contradicted by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, the Prime Minister of the State, himself.
(i) Addressing the delegates of all-India Legislators' Convention held in Lucknow in March, 1958, Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammad is reported to have said : "He said that he was taking forward a certain programme and policy and would like to make an offer to Sheikh Abdullah too to join them in carrying out that programme and they would all be with him. Let him take the chair and we shall take the 'maidan' (yield)."
(ii) Replying to an address of welcome given by the Rajpur Municipal Committee at public meeting on the 15th of May, 1958, Bakhshi Saheb referring to my arrest (my second arrest took place on 29th April, 1958) reported by an English daily of New Delhi, "Indian Express" of 16th May, 1958, to have stated:
"He had still high regard for Sheikh Abdullah and he did not like the idea of keeping him behind the bars. he changed his outlook and once again worked for his original ideals, will serve him again."
This gives lie direct to the prosecution charge that had conspired since 9th August, 1953, upto 20th April, 1958, to overthrow the Government of Jammu and Kashmir or committed any other offence, whatsoever.
With regard to the so-called charge of facilitating the wrongful annexation of the territory of the State by Pakistan, submit that have fought since 1931 for securing the right of self determination for the people of Kashmir; have never compromised on this basic human right with any party or power and have willingly suffered innumerable hardships and imprisonments. Therefore, the charge is not only grotesque and preposterous but contradicts what have stood for and struggled since the inception of the freedom movement in Kashmir. have already quoted the Defence Minister of the Government of India my statement made under Section 342 Cr. P.c, which will be appropriate to repeat here. Addressing the Security Council in New York on February 8, 1957, he stated :
(i) "I challenge anyone to show me one phrase uttered anywhere by Sheikh Abdullah and he has now become the pet idol, although before he was called a quisling-I ask anyone to show me one phrase where he says he wants to become part of Pakistan". (Kashmir Vol. II V.K. Krishna Menon's speech in the Security Council published by Information Service of India, New Delhi.)
The above categorical statement was made by no less a person than the Defence Minister of Government of India as leader of the Indian Delegation in the Security Council in 1957 when the Kashmir Case was being debated before the world forum. It should be presumed that the Defence Minister is in the know of all the facts which concern the security of his country. Moreover, this statement was made by him at a time when, according to the contention of the Counsel for prosecution, the conspiracy had reached the maturing stage.
(ii) Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammed while addressing a public meeting in Banaras as late as 3rd April, 1961, is reported by a well known English daily of New Delhi, "The Statesman" of 4th April, 1961, to have said :
"The two-nation theory which was fashionable at one time, was not acceptable to Kashmir. Even Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, who later gave the misguided sloga of independent Kashmir, did not talk of Kashmir becoming part of Pakistan."
The only and inescapable conclusion that can be drawn from the above quotations is that both the charges of the Prosecution against the accused are a mere figment of their fertile imagination. They are ridiculous, baseless and utterly false, having no substance in them..
While announcing these views I was hailed as a hero throughout India and proclaimed as a patriot of the highest order in the country. On the other hand Pakistan put a price on my head, calling me a quisling. It is an unkind twist of history that representatives of India now brand me as a traitor for expressing the self-same views. May I ask: Who has changed? Who has shifted the ground? I stand steadfast where I stood in 1947. At that time this right of the people was in danger when the raiders wished to make the sword as the final arbiter of people's destiny. I withstood that onslaught on the rights of the people of Kashmir with firmness and courage of conviction. The leaders and the Government of India were by my side, firmly supporting the same objectives in Kashmir and we fought together the unforgettable battles which were common to us here on the soil of Kashmir as well in the United Nations.
Before proceeding further I would like to make two points clear. Firstly, that the future of Kashmir is an international problem and not an internal one of India, as is wrongly held in some quarters. Therefore, any decision unilaterally taken in this behalf cannot be considered valid in international law nor can it be binding on the concerned parties. Secondly, the obligations and responsibilities undertaken in regard to Kashmir and the pledges given to her people were, as contended by the prosecution; not "a mere political wish of an individual' but were solemn pledges given on behalf of Government of India by its Prime Minister with full concurrence and approval of the Parliament of the country, representing the sovereign will of the people of India.
In support of the above assertions and in order to show that there was complete identity in our objectives, I give below a few excerpts from a speech of the Prime Minister of India, delivered in Parliament.
Addressing the Indian Parliament on 7th August, 1952, the Prime Minister, inter alia said:
(a) "It (Kashmir problem) is an international problem and would have been an international problem anyhow if it concerned any other nation besides India and it does. Its international character was further emphasised because a large number of other countries took an interest in the problem and gave advice."
(b) "The question is before the nations of the world, whether they are united or not and whether they are a forum or not. It is an international matter and a matter which is in the minds of millions of men".
(c) "We have tried to fashion our action in regard to the problem according to what we considered to be our obligations and responsibilities. What were those obligations and responsibilities? The first was to protect and safeguard the territory of India from every invasion. That is the primary responsibility of the State. Secondly, it was our duty to honour the pledge we gave to the people of Jammu and Kashmir State. And that pledge was a two-fold pledge. We were obliged to protect them from invasion and rape and loot and arson and everything that accom panied that invasion. That was the first part of the pledge. The second part of the pledge was given by us unilaterally and was to the effect that it would be for the people to decide finally what their future was to be. The third was to honour the assurances we gave to the United Nations. And the fourth was to work for a peaceful settlement."
(d) "In the course of these years, I have repeatedly placed the situation before this House and it is with the support and concurrence of this House that we have continued to pursue the policy that we have pursued."
(e) "As the House knows, we decided right at the beginning that we were agreeable to a plebiscite in which all the people of Jammu and Kashmir would take part."
(f) "Among the assurances and pledges that we have given is the pledge which was implied in our policy, namely, that the people of Jammu and Kashmir State would decide their future. Let me be quite clear about this."
(g) "I want to stress that it is only the people of Kashmir who decide the future of Kashmir. It is not that we have merely said that to the United Nations and to the people of Kashmir. It is our conviction and one that is borne out by the policy we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but everywhere. Though these five years have meant a lot of trouble and expense and in spite of all we have done we would willingly leave Kashmir, if it was made clear to us that people of Kashmir wanted us to go. However sad we may feel about leaving, we are not going to stay against the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose yourself on them at the point of a bayonet."
(h) "With all deference to this Parliament I would like to say that the ultimate decision will be made in the minds and hearts of men and women of Kashmir and not in this Parliament or at the United Nations".
(i) "We do not want to win people against their will and with the help of armed force; and if the people of Jammu and Kashmir State wish to part company with us, they can go their way and we shall go ours. We want no forced marriages, no forced unions."
(1) "We have resolved not to dishonour the pledges we have given to the people of Kashmir or to India, and, therefore, we shall pursue our policy accordingly." The above excerpts give a very lucid and clear picture of the policy pursued by the Government of India in regard to Kashmir from the beginning. This policy was also repeatedly made known to the world in their White Papers on Kashmir, in radio broadcasts, press conferences, speeches and even in the communications that passed between the Prime Minister of India and the other important world dignitaries from time to time. The following are some amongst such numerous pronouncements :
(i) on 25th October 1947, the Prime Minister of India in a telegram to the Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom, London, said
I should like to make it clear that the question of aiding Kashmir in this emergency is not designed in any way to influence the State to accede to India. Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or State must be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people and we adhere to this view..."
(ii) Winding up his broadcast on 2nd November, 1947, the Prime Minister of India announced:
"We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given, and the Maharaja has supported it, not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not, and cannot, back out of It".
"We are prepared when peace and law and order have been established to have a referendum held under the international auspices like the United Nations. We want it to be a fair and just reference to the people and we shall accept their verdict."
(ii) In her complaint before the Security Council, India made it clear:
"In order to avoid any possible suggestion that
India had taken advantage of the State's immediate peril, for her own political advantage, the Dominion Government made it clear that once the soil of the State has been cleared of the invaders and normal conditions restored, its people will be free to decide their future by the recognised democratic method of a plebiscite or referendum which in order ensure complete They impartiality, might be held under international auspices.
(iv) The Government of India's White Paper on Jammu and Kashmir, 1948, among other things mentions on page 45:
….the question of accession is to be decided finally in a free plebiscite. The only purpose for which the Indian troops are operating in Kashmir is to ensure that the vote of the people will not be subjected to coercion As Government of India have repeatedly made it clear, there is to be no victimisation of any native of the State whatever his political views or affiliations may be and no Kashmiri will be deprived of the right to vote."
(v) On 31st October, 1945, Prime Minister of India sent a lengthy telegram to the Prime Minister of Pakistan in which he said:
"Our assurances that we will withdraw our troops from Kashmir as soon as peace and order are restored and leave the decision about the future of the State to the people of the State is not merely a pledge to your Government but also to the people of Kashmir and to the World......"
(vi) The joint communique issued by the two Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan after having met in Delhi and discussed the dispute on Kashmir in detail on August 21, 1953, stated:
"It was their firm opinion that this dispute should be settled in accordance with the wishes. of the people of that State, with a view to promote their well being and causing the least disturbance to the life of the people of State. The most feasible method of ascertaining the wishes of the people was by a fair and impartial plebiscite.
(vii) On 25th November, 1947, the Prime Minister of India told the Constituent Assembly:
"We have gone to Kashmir to protect the people and as soon as this duty is discharged our forces need not remain there and we shall withdraw our forces..."
He further added:
...In order to establish our bona-fides we have suggested that when the people are given the chance to decide their future this should be done under the supervision of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations Organization. The issue in Kashmir is whether violence. and naked force should decide the future or the will of the people.
What is the position now? Who is avoiding the obligations and responsibilities undertaken with regard to Kashmir ? And finally may I ask who is dishonoring the pledges given to the people of Kashmir? The Prime Minister of India, contrary to his numerous earlier commitments, some of which I have quoted above, now proclaims to the world that the Kashmir problem has become petrified for the last 12 years and the people there have almost forgotten it. There is stability and the people have already gone through two general elections. therefore, no attempt should be made to disturb the present status-quo. Thus the people are now told that what the 'naked force' has achieved should be accepted as the decision in the dispute and not the "will of the people." I do not want here to go into the claim regarding the so-called stability nor into the fraudulent character of the general elections which is advanced obviously as a plea for wriggling out from the earlier commitments. I am sure that the world opinion will not be easily misled by such wishful claims. I, however, hold that the stand now taken, in clear violation of numerous earlier pledges, is no less an onslaught on the fundamental rights of the people of Kashmir than that of 1947. I shall resist it with the same firmness and courage of conviction as I did in 1947. I have no doubt in my mind that the people of the State will never rest content until the exercise of this birthright is secured for them.
I am not interested in a personal defence and I would not have stated even what I have stated if I had not felt that my trial was something for more than a personal charge against me. It is in effect a trial of the entire population of Jammu and Kashmir, even though some of them, being content with their transient personal interests or out of fear, may not be prepared to recognise or openly declare so.
When law is not based on the will of the people, it can lend itself to the suppression of their aspirations. Such law has no moral validity even though it may be enforced for a while. There is a law higher than that, the law that represents. the people's will and secures their well-being, and there is a Tribunal of human conscience which judges the rulers and the ruled alike by standards which do not change by the arbitrary will of the most powerful. To that law I gladly submit and that Tribunal I shall face with confidence and without fear, leaving it to history and posterity to pronounce their verdict on the claims I have made on behalf of the four million people of the State.
It is a small matter as to what happens to me. But it is no small matter that the people of Jammu and Kashmir suffer poverty, humiliation and degradation. It has been no small matter what they have endured for more than a decade and what they are enduring now. In fact the State has become a vast prison camp where the people are governed by heinous laws and monstrous ordinances some of which entail death sentences while others provide imprisonment for ten years without making it incumbent on the executive authority even to apprise the victim of the charge, not to say of a judicial trial. Hundreds of Kashmiris have suffered incarceration for years since 9th August 1953 under these lawless laws; many were shot by the Army and the Police; hundreds were maimed and disabled for life; hundreds again were involved in fictitious criminal cases in order to silence their voices, and yet it is claimed that there is stability! Be that as it may, these very events have demonstrated the justice of the demand for the immediate implementation of the pledge of the plebiscite given to the people by India, Pakistan and the United Nations. The people of the State have not forgotten it and will never forget it.
If my imprisonment serves the cause to which I have dedicated myself, then it will be well with me and I shall take pride in thus serving my people and the land of my forefathers. My voice may be stifled behind the prison walls but it will con tinue to echo and ring for all times to come. It can never be stopped. It is the voice of human conscience; it is the voice of the people. I am only a symbol of people's undeniable aspirations and rights. What I saying now will be repeated time and again, and it will go down in history.
Kashmir is dear to us because of its beauty and past traditions which are common to all who inhabit this land. But it is the future that calls to us and for which we labour; a future that will be the common heritage of all and in which we, us free men and women, will build the Kashmir of our dreams. Then only shall we be worthy of the land we dwell in.
Sd/-Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah
Special Jail, Jammu.
Dated, 28th June, 1961.
ADDENDUM
Following is the report of oral arguments advanced by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah in the Court of Mr. N.K. Hak, Special Magistrate, Jammu, on 28th June, 1961.
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, chief accused in the Kashmir Conspiracy Case, elaborating his arguments advanced in his written statement, stated that the entire Prosecution Case was a big joke and farce. "This is the inevitable conclusion which could be drawn from the proceedings of this case," he said. Referring to the slanderous expressions and insinuations hurled by the senior Prosecution Counsel at him, his family, friends and colleagues, over and again, he said that he did not propose to discuss the reasons which prompted the Prosecution Counsel to adopt this conduct. It has been his fate all his life that all those who maligned him acquired large benefits and mundane comforts. Some got jagirs', others got lucrative posts, some got medals and again some even aspired to all India leadership. He did not, however, understand one thing: What inspired and prompted the senior Prosecution Counsel to drag in his arguments, repeatedly, the names of his wife and daughter, knowing full well that neither of them was an accused in this case nor was there any serious charge brought by the Prosecution against them. The Prosecution Counsel knew very well that these poor innocent ladies could not answer him. back. Therefore, it was most unchivalrous on his part to drag them and other ladies belonging to high families such as the sister of Kh. Ali Shah in this case, again and again. "True that after independence the ruling circles in India have completely lost sight of those noble values of life which Gandhiji gave to the nation", remarked Sheikh Saheb. "This was a great tragedy particularly for those hundreds and thousands of men and women of India who sacrificed everything to uphold those noble values-values of non-violence, truth, fair-play, justice, human brotherhood and love for the down-trodden" They expected that these values will not be preached to the outside world only but practiced at home also. Hardly could it, however, be believed, he went on, that India was fast losing even ordinary human decency.
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah stated that the senior Prosecution Counsel was believed to be one of the eminent members of the Indian Bar and a gentleman. He had been included a number of times as a member of the Indian delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations. He was known to have gained the respect and confidence of the Prime Minister of India, whom, the Sheikh described, "as one of the noblest and finest characters that India has ever produced." "In Spite of my political differences with him and despite his other failings and who is immune from failings-none can dispute this fact about him", said Sheikh Saheb. Therefore, it was a surprise for him to hear the Prosecution Counsel dragging in his arguments repeatedly the names of those ladies, despite his association with such a great personality. He has not, therefore, been able to fully understand yet the aim and purpose of Prosecution Counsel to indulge in such uncalled for mud-slinging. But two reasons struck him prominently which might have prompted for recourse to this conduct. Firstly, the aim may be to derive some mundane advantages for him. self or secondly he was arguing a very bad case, when generally lawyers begin to abuse. It was incomprehensible to believe that such an eminent lawyers as Shri G.S. Pathak would draw strange and ridiculous inferences from the records of the case which would make any lawyer a laughing stock in the legal profession. "If it was to gain some mundane advantage I wish him good luck. May be, he abused us to please his clients, finding nothing in the case". He further said that Mr. Pathak was not justified in attributing to him the authorship of an alleged letter to the Security Council on the basis of the description by it of the Kashmir problem as an "oozing sore", which expression was also to be found in his petition to the High Court. Many others had similarly described the Kashmir problem. He further added that Mr. Pathak assumed things, drew imaginary pictures and then came to strange conclusions. He questioned the Prosecution Counsel's contention that he thought Pakistan to be a friend and India an enemy because he had said that any country supporting plebiscite was his friend and that opposing it was his enemy. "How could one answer such spurious and nonsensical arguments ?" Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah asked.
He stated that from the records of the case there was no incriminating evidence against his wife, daughter or his son-in-law's sister, which could have prompted the Prosecution Counsel to drag in their names in this Court. To simple and innocent letters alleged by the Prosecution to have been written by Khalida, his daughter, to her sister-in-law, suggesting giving relief to the victims who fell to the bullets of the perpetrators of the 9th August coup-d’état or who were maimed and disabled for life were the evidence relating to her. "Is it a crime in India of today even to help those in distress?"
Dealing with the alleged receipt of money by his wife from Pakistan, he said, "assuming though denying that she received money to help her in defending this case or overcoming her distress after August 9, 1953, is it a crime? We receive financial aid from Britain even today in arranging our defence. What right had anybody to intercept money, which, according to Prosecution, came to Bugum Abdullah from Pakistan?'' In this connection he referred to the financial assistance rendered by the Indian National Congress to freedom fighters all over the world. He cited the case of Algeria and of the funds that were raised in India to help the freedom fighters there on the appeal of Congress. Everybody knew that the people of Algeria were fighting a real war against the French Government and yet this did not deter the people of India to render them financial assistance. Sheikh Saheb also referred to the funds raised in India for the victims of a recent treason trial in South Africa. "Did Indian people commit any offence by contributing to such funds? he asked. "Could this also come under the purview of Section 121-A of Cr. P.C.?"
The other allegation against Begum Abdullah is and alleged letter which is attributed by the Prosecution to have been written by her to somebody in Pakistan and which was recovered from prosecution witness, Pir Atta Mohammad Thindum. When the said Pir was shown this alleged letter in the Court he failed to identify it. Regarding the allegation of the Prosecution that Begum Abdullah was directing the activities of the Plebiscite Front and carrying verbal messages from her husband to the leaders of the Front and assiting the organisation in other material aspects, he said that his wife had no interest in politics and never associated herself with any political party in the State. He referred to the evidence of what he called "two star prosecution witnesses, Bashir Ahmad Shahbaz and Mohmmad Sultan Ghaznavi'' and said that Shahbaz had clearly stated that the Plebiscite Front never received any kind of aid from Begum Abdullah. And Ghaznavi had disclosed the nature of "my oral instruction from jail through the Begum to the Plebiscite Front." He said "I had directed boycott of the Constituent Assembly although the Begum had not visited me then, and Mirza Mohammad Afzal Beg, accused, who led the boycott of the Assembly was with me as a detenu only three days earlier. He was released from Kud Detention Camp on the 19th of October, 1956. He stopped at his house for a night and then left for Srinagar to attend the session of the Assembly which began on 21st October. Thus this single instance was enough to prove the incredibility of the whole Prosecution evidence."
Addressing the Court; Sheikh Saheb stated that he needed. not take the Court's time by going into the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses. That job had been ably and adequately done by "my colleagues Messrs. Beg, Shawl and Mr. Mohammad Lateef, Advocate, the Defence Counsel, during the course of their arguments. They had proved to the hilt the contradictions in the statements of the prosecution. witnesses and the character and the veracity of their depositions.
"These are the only allegations brought by the prosecution on the files of this case against my wife and daughter," he said, adding that the senior Prosecution Counsel was supposed to know this. Yet and yet it was amazing and strange for the Prosecution Counsel to indulge in mud-slinging against them.
Referring to the sister of his son-in-law, he stated that there was absolutely nothing against her person with the exception that some innocuous posters were alleged to have been recovered by the police on search from her house. Her son, a teenager, was put in jail and she was included in the list of co-conspirators. He said that the several lists of co-conspirators had been filed by the Prosecution in the Court "in order to malign us, strike terror amongst our sympathisers. and stop all avenues of future possible defence."
Elaborating on the reference to 'Blitz' in the written version. statement, he said that despite the tremendous efforts of the "the curtain ruling circles of India and of the State to suppress truth about the causes that led to the 9th August, 1953 coup, is slowly but steadily being lifted. Truth will come out however one might try to bury it. That is the lesson which history has taught us," he said. The revelation in the "Blitz" belied. the claim made by the ruling circles in India that they had no hand in this sordid affair. One day the great Indian nation. would come to know about the real facts. Today they were made to believe that India had not produced a worse traitor than Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah. But he had no doubt in his mind that time would come when they would realise as to who were the real traitors and betrayers of India's honour, who could without any qualms of conscience conspire to stab their friends in the back. Then they would find that Sheikh Abdullah and Beg were not amongst such traitors. He added that whatever might happen he would always remember with gratitude the help and assistance rendered to the people of Kashmir in their distress and the affection showered upon him once, by the people of India.
Commenting on the references in his written argument, to Mr. Krishna Menon's reported speeches Sheikh Saheb said that it was unfortunate that Shri Menon should consider every such person a traitor and guilty of treason who did not agree with his views and should ask them to leave the country. "Perhaps, he wanted to live alone in the whole sub-continent including even Pakistan". He said "Shri Menon was fond of delivering long speeches without, of-course, having much sense in them. This great Krishna Menon is believed to be the conscience-keeper of the Prime Minister of India".
Commenting on the remark of Shri A K. Sen in the Lok Sabha in December 1960, "when he questioned the inferential reference of Mr. Masani to me amongst the patriotic Indians' ' Sheikh Saheb said that he did not know the Minister personally. He believed when we were engaged in fighting the freedom battles for India, this gentleman must have been loitering in some streets of Calcutta.`` This great Law Minister of India did not only stop at that but during the debate on the demands of his Ministry in Lok Sabha, he again referred to this case on March 24, 1961, stating, "Kashmir Conspiracy Case has proved one thing to the whole world, that in Kashmir there is the fullest of liberty, even to an accused in a conspiracy case. Each accused has taken months to make his statement under Section 342 and everyone knows how abusive those statements have been against the highest in the land". Sheikh Saheb took strong objection to this statement and stated, "it is common knowledge that a person is always considered innocent before law unless proven guilty. There is, therefore, no reason to believe that a person adorning the chair of a Law Minister in the Centre would be ignorant of this elementary principle of law". He laid particular emphasis upon the words even to the accused in a conspiracy case" and said that perhaps it was the wish of the Hon'ble Minister "to get us hanged even before a trial." Sheikh Saheb asked the court that the statements filed by the accused under Sec. 342 were on the record of the case and the Court had not given its verdict yet on them, and even the Prosecution had not characterized them as abusive in content. But, on the contrary, the senior Prosecution Counsel had described some of the statements as "learned". Therefore, Contin Sheikh Saheb, the remarks of the Hon'ble Minister were not only untrue and false, but tantamount to clear contempt of Court. The Law Minister had no right to comment on proceedings of this court. He felt that he could have been hauled up for contempt had he not made this statement on the floor of the Parliament which was a privileged forum. It was an abuse of privilege and Sheikh Saheb indicated that he would ask his lawyer, as soon as he had an opportunity, to bring this matter to the notice of the Hon'ble Speaker of the Lok Sabha, requesting him to pull the Minister up. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah described Mr. Krishna Menon and Mr. A.K. Sen as "the two pillars of Government of India '' and "darlings" of the Prime Minister.
Commenting on the huge expenditure incurred by the Prosecution of this case, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah said, "it is actually the Government of India who was footing the bill and putting in their vast resources, both financial and administrative, in this case to secure our conviction. The Government of Jammu and Kashmir is only a cover." He read a long list of local lawyers and advocates who were engaged by the Prosecution in this case, besides the top-most Counsel from India, named in his written argument. During Mr. Pathak's arguments, another lawyer was added by the Prosecution to the already existing list of lawyers engaged by them. "He was Shri Chaturvedi of Allahabad, a very handsome, tall and robust gentleman. During the whole argument stage of Mr. Pathak, he hardly spoke a word nor could it be believed that he could give any advice to the Prosecution at this late stage. He left us before Shri Pathak's arguments concluded and yet, if my information is correct, he got away with Rs. 35,000/- as remuneration. This one single instance would show how recklessly money is being squandered freely at the cost of the tax-payer. Such being the case and with this interest in the matter by the Government of India, how am I expected to believe that an ordinary Magistrate in the State or for that matter any Court in India will disregard the wishes and interests of the Government of India in this case and judge me squarely and fairly ?" asked Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah.
The Magistrate observed: "The Court will refuse to be influenced and will not even look into the statements made by Mr. Sen or any other person outside the Court."
The Special Prosecutor, Mr. Nanda, submitted that there was nothing similar on the files of the Court to which Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah retorted that the Lok Sabha records were more important than those files.
Resuming his arguments after the break, he told the Magistrate that the Prosecution Counsel had not properly appreciated his refusal to answer the Court questions during his examination under Section 342 Cr. P.C. Therefore, he was forced to give some of the reasons that had prompted him to adopt this attitude. Commenting on the remarks of the Chief Justice of India, as contained in his written argument, Sheikh Saheb said that such remarks from the highest judicial authority in India necessarily created apprehensions in the minds of the accused that they might not receive a fair deal. He thanked the Court, however, for giving him an assurance that it would not be influenced by such extraneous remarks of anyone.
Without questioning the technical competence of the Government to appoint a Magistrate to enquire into the charges brought against the accused by the Prosecution, Sheikh Saheb commented that the fact remained that it was the same Government who was responsible for the happenings of 9th August, 1953. He, therefore, questioned the fairness of the complainant's right to appoint the judge for his own cause and then expect the accused to have full confidence in the latter's impartiality. The Magistrate asked: "Who should appoint the Magistrate, if not the Government ?" To this inquiry Sheikh Saheb said that in cases like the present one, the inquiring Magistrate ought to have been selected by the Chief Justice of the State and not by the Government who is the complainant in the case. Mirza Mohammad Afzal Beg intervened and submitted that this was purely a legal question and Sheikh Saheb could not be expected to answer it. He was, however, prepared to answer the question fully if the Court so desired. Sheikh Saheb, continuing his arguments, observed that under such circumstances even if the Magistrate would be absolutely im partial to the accused, he will not inspire confidence in their minds. It was his life-long experience, as it must be of those of others, that in this mundane world, generally everyone looked to see which side his bread was buttered.
"It is hard and extremely rare to find men of Gandhi's character and calibre who could gladly face the bullets of an assassin to uphold truth."
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah submitted that two specific questions had been posed by the Prosecution Counsel to him: One was that why he did not reply to questions of the Court u/s 342 Cr. P.C. The inference that the Prosecution Counsel sought to draw from this was absolutely unwarranted in law and he could quote a number of rulings on this point. He had, however, explained to some extent the causes and apprehensions which led him to adopt such an attitude.
The other question posed to him, submitted by Sheikh Saheb, was that a change had come to him in 1952. Before answering this question he stated that, "absurdities of the Prosecution case are so obvious and its inherent contradiction so indubitable that it deserves outright rejection by the Court. Thus alone could the judiciary of the State, if it were really independent, redeem to a certain extent the reputation, not only of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir but that of India also." In this connection he referred to the mass treason trial launched over four years ago by the South African Government in which many people were accused of conspiring to overthrow that Government by violent means. The judge discharged all the accused without even asking the Defence to reply to the arguments of the Prosecution, thus redeeming the reputation of the South African State. 'Why should it be left to the judiciary of the South African State alone, a State whose governmental policies are hated by almost all the States of the world-to uphold the traditions of the British judicial system?" he asked. "After all we in India have a judicial system based on British traditions. Therefore, the least that the accused expected from the Court was that it should have thrown out the case without calling upon the Defence to reply to the arguments of the Prosecution. The evidence produced, both oral and documentary, called for no other course than the outright rejection of the case.
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah repudiated the charge of conspiracy to overthrow the Government by force and secure wrongful annexation of Kashmir by Pakistan. "These heinous charges are levelled by the Prosecution at the accused in the dock who have the brightest record of their services in the cause of India's freedom movement and one nationhood. If they had wished for their State to become part of Pakistan in 1947, there was no one to stop them from such a course.'
Referring to Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammad, Prime Minister and complainant in the case, Sheikh Saheb said that since the coup of 9th August, 1953, Bakhshi Saheb had said many things, delivered innumerable speeches and held several press conferences in all of which he had accused him of many obnoxious and frivolous charges i.e. corruption, mal administration, nepotism and even conspiracy with foreign powers, to declare the State independent, with a view to mislead and poison Indian public opinion against him to to gain his own ends. "I do not want to take your time in repudiating these baseless and malicious accusations", he submitted to the Court, "because that is not my purpose here nor are these the issues involved in the case. But the inference that I want to draw is that up till now Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammad has nowhere accused me of the charges which the Prosecution has made the basis of this inquiry. I challenge the Prosecution to show me a single phrase ever uttered by Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammad which could support their contention that I wanted to overthrow his Government or to forcibly annex the State with Pakistan. "On the contrary, there are his numerous public announcements wherein he offered to step down from the office of the premiership in case I accepted his programme and policy" , he observed. Reading from some public statements of Bakhshi Ghulam Mohamad, Sheikh Saheb said: "When I could have the premiership of the State for the mere asking, why need I have conspired and resorted to violent and unlawful means. to get it! Today there is no dearth of the highest positions for me in India as well as in Pakistan. I have been several times approached even during the present inquiry to return back to power and accept the responsibility of the premiership and give up the demand for securing the right of self-determination for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. But I will never sacrifice my principles for self aggrandizement or for transitory and mundane advantages."
Regarding the charge of facilitating wrongful annexation. of Kashmir by Pakistan, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah alluding to the references of Mr. Krishna Menon's speech in the Security Council and Bakhshi Saheb's speech at Banaras, commented that in view of these clear declarations he was amazed at the courage of the Prosecution to persist in their charge against the accused, which were "mere figments of their fertile imagination".
Shri Pandey, the Prosecution Counsel, told the Court that Sheikh Saheb was referring to the documents that were not on the record to which the latter retorted that the same could be produced if asked for by the Court. Continuing his argument, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah observed that to rebut the charges of conspiracy to overthrow the Government and of wrongful annexation of the State with Pakistan, one could not produce any better evidence than the statements and public declarations, quoted already, of the Defence Minister of India and the Prime Minister of the State, the complainant in the case.
He denied the Prosecution's contention that he changed before he was dismissed and arrested on Aug. 9, 1953. Quoting profusely from the speech of the Prime Minister of India, delivered in the Lok Sabha on 7th of August, 1952, he said that some people now question his wisdom of having developed such close relationship with Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, but he asked: "Who would not love and bow before him for giving expression to such noble sentiments and ideals. And why should we now be prosecuted for upholding these very principles and ideals ?"
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah explained to the Court the difference between referendum and plebiscite which the Magistrate had asked Mr. Mohiuddin Shawl to throw light upon, during the course of his arguments. He said that these were the two weapons in the hands of the people who are considered sovereign in the modern set-up of democracy. But while referendums limited the choice of the people to mere yes or no with regard to a controversial piece of legislation, the plebiscite was wider in its scope and was resorted to when. fundamental changes such as territorial adjustments between two sovereign States were involved. In this regard he cited the case of Iran where a referendum was held on the oil nationalization issue during Mr. Musaddiq's premiership. He also cited the examples of Saar, Outer Mongolia and Cameroons and other States of Africa, where the question of territorial adjustment was resolved by holding plebiscite. The Magistrate asked: "Is there any such provision in the Indian Constitution ? To which Sheikh Saheb replied that that was the very basic concept of democracy and, therefore, inherent in all democratic Constitutions. Commenting upon the communique issued by the two Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan on 21st August, 1953, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah stated that this was supported by Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammad in his statement issued to the Press on August 22, 1953. He then quoted portions from this statement in which Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammad had, inter-alia, stated
(a) "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 finalised on behalf of the Government of India with our concurrence and has our unqualified support. The reiteration of the principle that the people of the State should be afforded fullest opportunities of expressing their will, without coercion or pressure, acquires great significance in view of the resolve of the two Prime Ministers to have the dispute settled through peaceful means and without any outside interference......
(b) "I now hope that the decision of the two Prime Ministers will be implemented faithfully.
(c) "Of late proposals about the unnatural partition of Jammu and Kashmir State had been mooted by responsible quarters here and abroad and consequently the memory of the grim events of 1947 was haunting the people in all parts of the State. I am happy that it has been recognised that the unity of the people. of Jammu and Kashmir should not be disrupted in any way......
(d) "Now that we have succeeded in securing our right. of self-determination, we can hopefully look forward to more peaceful times.
(e) "The elimination of foreign interference and the of good-will and co-operative spirit, of which there is abundant evidence in the statement of the two Prime Ministers, will, in our opinion, lead to a successful and honourable settlement of these issues. As soon as these matters of dispute are dealt with amicably, the Jammu and Kashmir Government will consider the question of formally appointing a Plebiscite Administrator and inducting him into office. We believe that for the discharge of onerous responsibilities as a Plebiscite Administrator, a a person of proven impartiality and merit, free from international controversies and commitments, will be selected to hold this high office...
(f) "No effort should, therefore, be spared to bring the two countries closer to each other."
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah observed that the accused in the dock wanted nothing more than the faithful implementation of what has been stated by Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammad in the above excerpts. "Why then this great 'hulla-ballo' about the demana of the plebiscite ?'' he asked. It is pertinent to note, said Sheikh Saheb, that this statement by Bakhshi Ghulam Mohammad was made two weeks after his arrest in August, 1953 which clearly proved the absurdity and hollowness of the Prosecution assertion that there had arisen differences in ideals and policies between him and some of his colleagues in the cabinet or in the National Conference.
Alluding to sub-paragraph 4 of para 14-B of his written argument, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah deplored that there was a wide gulf between the precept and practice in the statements made and pledges given by the Government of India. He added that if according to the Government of India Pronouncement in 1948, "there is to be no victimisation of any native of the State, whatever his political views or affiliations may be and no Kashmiri will be deprived of the right to vote." then why all this victimisation and harassment which the accused in the dock and thousands of others along with them are suffering since 1953!**
According to the Prime Minister of India, the Indian Army went to Kashmir "to protect the people and as soon as this duty is discharged, our forces need not remain there and we shall withdraw our forces...'' The Indian Army was sent to Kashmir to protect the right of self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir against the onslaught of raiders. In another place the Prime Minister had stated the Indian Army had come to protect the people of the State "from the invasion and rape and loot and everything that accompanied that invasion" and not with the object of acquiring the territory of the State for India. Therefore, if any one now felt that there was no further need of protection by the Indian Army and accordingly wanted that it should leave the State, "what crime did he commit ?" he asked. He further added that he had very high regard for Indian Army personnel and that he had had personal and most cordial relations with many of its senior officers, but he could never believe that in Gandhi's India the army was raised for territorial gain and subjugation.
Concluding his arguments, Sheikh Saheb thanked the Magistrate and requested him to keep his written arguments on the file of the case, a signed copy of which he presented to the Court.
Issued by
J. & K. Legal Defence Committee,
Jammu