Reneging on the promise to J&K

By Kuldip Nayar

The failure of the summit at Agra was unfortunate. But the Union Home Minister, Mr. L. K. Advani's statement in the Rajya Sabha is a disaster. It has ruled out autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir. This is going against the terms of the Instrument of Accession under which Maharaja Hari Singh had joined the Indian Union after the Britishers left. This is also violating the 1951-52 understanding which the State's popular leader, Sheikh Abdullah, had come to reach with New Delhi to spell out the autonomy.

All that the Maharaja transferred to the Government of India through the Instrument of Accession were the powers over Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications. The rest was retained by the State. The J&K Constituent Assembly, which endorsed the accession to India and made it permanent so as not to open it to any subsequent law or revision, prepared a document of its own, listing all subjects for governance except Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications.

Not only that, New Delhi made a special constitutional provision, Article 370, to recognise the special status of J&K. The Article asks the Union ``to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the state.'' The provision further makes it clear that ``no such order which relates to matters other than those referred to in the Instrument of Accession (that is, Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications) shall be issued except with the concurrence of that Government'' (meaning thereby J&K).

We know that the agenda of the BJP and its earlier incarnation, the Jan Sangh, has been to rescind Article 370 and to whittle down the autonomy. The Congress Governments at New Delhi also usurped the powers which belonged to the State. But Jawaharlal Nehru realised the folly and initiated with Sheikh Abdullah the negotiations, which could not conclude because of his death. Indira Gandhi picked up the thread where her father had left. A limited agreement was reached between G. P. Parthasarathi, Indira Gandhi's representative, and Sheikh Abdullah in 1975. The full accord could not be reached because of the Sheikh's death. Dr. Farooq Abdullah's Government tried to retrieve the ground when it passed the autonomy resolution in the State Assembly last year. Mr. Advani's statement that the restoration of the pre-1953 agreement would mean turning the clock back amounts to reneging on the promise given by New Delhi in writing. The limited accession - and the obligations going with it - were accepted by Nehru and the then Governor-General, Lord Mountbatten. The State joined the Indian Union on the understanding that it would be autonomous in all subjects except Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications.

It is up to the people of the State to give more subjects. It is not for the Indian Union to change the agreement unilaterally and say what was taken away without their consent in the last four decades will not be returned to them when they have specially asked for it through their Assembly. The Supreme Court, the Auditor-General, the Election Commission - all are good institutions but if the people of Jammu and Kashmir want to set up such institutions on their own, they are within their right under the Instrument of Accession.

Jammu & Kashmir cannot be compared with the other States. For example, Punjab, Tamil Nadu or West Bengal were already part of the Union when India got independence. J & K joined the Union and it was on the specific understanding, the Instrument of Accession, which gives New Delhi only three subjects, Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications.

I am sure that if New Delhi were to hold negotiations with Srinagar, the latter will realise that closer integration with India would be advantageous to it. But by saying the pre- 1953 status was ``not acceptable'', Mr. Advani has thrown down the gauntlet to the National Conference and other liberal elements in Jammu and Kashmir.

I hope that things can still be worked out to the satisfaction of the people in Jammu and Kashmir. A full autonomy for the State within the Union may also one day form the basis for talks with Islamabad. But Mr. Advani, I fear, may by then complicate matters by the statements which may sound strong but are not wise.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : IAS officers' transfer
Next     : Reconstructing the Agra summit