I agree with the Prime Minister that the matter of Kashmir is a highly complicated one and each one of us, whatever may be his point of view, must approach this problem from a constructive standpoint. I cannot share the view that we are creating a new heaven and a new earth by accepting the scheme which has been placed before the House on the motion of the Prime Minister. The question can be divided into two parts.
One relates to the international complications arising out of Kashmir and the other relates to the arrangements that have to be made between Kashmir and ourselves regarding the future Constitution of Kashmir.
It has been said that I was a party when the decision was taken to refer the Kashmir issue to the UNO. That is an obvious fact. I have no right and I do not wish to disclose the extraordinary circumstances under which that decision was taken and the great expectations which the Government of India had on that occasion, but it is a matter of common knowledge that we have not got fair treatment from the United Nations, which we had expected. We did not go to the UNO with regard to the question of accession, because accession then was an established fact. We went there for the purpose of getting a quick decision from the UNO regarding the raids which were then taking place by persons behind whom there was the Pakistan Government. The raiders merely acted on behalf of somebody else.
Somehow, we should withdraw ourselves, so far as consideration of the Kashmir case is concerned, from the UNO. We can tell them respectfully that we have had enough of the UNO and let us now consider and try to settle the matter through our own efforts. I am not suggesting that India should withdraw from the UNO. The only matter regarding which the dispute still continues is then an established fact. We went there for the purpose of getting a quick decision from the UNO about the occupation of the enemy. The Prime Minister said today, that, that portion is there. It is a matter for national humiliation. We say that Kashmir is a part of India. It is so. So, a part of India is today in the occupation of the enemy and we are helpless. We are peace-lovers, no doubt. But peace-lovers to what extent? That we will even allow a portion of our territory to be occupied by the enemy? Of course the Prime Minister said: thus far and no further. If the raiders enter into any part of Kashmir, he held out a threat of war not in relation to Pakistan and Kashmir, but war on a bigger scale between India and Pakistan.
Is there any possibility of our getting back this territory? We shall not get it through the efforts of the United Nations, we shall not get it through peaceful methods, by negotiations with Pakistan. That means we lose it, unless we use force and the Prime Minister is unwilling to do so. Let us face facts are we prepared to lose it?
It has been said that there is some provision in the Constitution, that we are bound by the pledges which have been given. Pledges? Undoubtedly, so many pledges we have given. We gave a pledge to Hyderabad. Did we not say that there would be a Constituent Assembly for Hyderabad? It was followed by another pledge that the future of Hyderabad would be decided by the Legislative Assembly of Hyderabad. But is not Hyderabad already a part of the Indian Union? We gave pledges also to those princes whom we are liquidating in different forms today. If we talk of pledges, we have given pledges on many other occasions. We gave pledges to the minorities in East Bengal. That was given after the attainment of independence. The Prime Minister said the other day that even if Kashmir had not acceded to India, when Kashmir was attacked by the raiders, on humanitarian grounds the Indian army could have marched to Kashmir and protected the distressed and oppressed. I felt proud. But if I make a similar statement, or even a similar suggestion for the purpose of saving the lives and honour of nine million of our fellow brethren and sisters through whose sacrifices, to some extent at least, freedom has been achieved, I am a communalist, I am a reactionary, I am a war-monger!
Pledges? Undoubtedly pledges have been given. I am also anxious that pledges should be respected and honoured. What was the nature of the pledges? We did not give any new pledge to Kashmir. Let us be clear about it.
What was the set-up we accepted when the British withdrew from India? There was the Indian India divided into India and Pakistan and there was, if I may call it, the Princely India. Every one of those five hundred rulers got theoretical independence and they need have acceded to India only with relation to three subjects. So far as the rest was concerned it was purely voluntary. That was the pattern which we accepted from the British Government. So far as the 498 states were concerned, they came to India, acceded to India on the 14th August 1947 in relation to three subjects only, but still it was accession, full accession. Later on, they all came in relation to all these subjects and were gradually absorbed in the Constitution of India that we have passed.
Supposing some sort of fulfilment of the pledge that we are thinking of so literally in relation to Kashmir, was demanded by these states, would we have agreed to give that?
We would not have because that would have destroyed India. But there was a different approach to the solution of those problems. They were made to feel that in the interest of India, in their interest, in the interest of mutual progress, they will have to accept this constitution that we are preparing and the constitution made elaborate provisions for nationally absorbing them into its fabric. No coercion, no compulsion. They were made to feel that they could get what they wanted from this Constitution.
May I ask—was not Sheikh Abdullah a party to this Constitution? He was a member of the Constituent Assembly; but he is asking for special treatment. Did he not agree to accept this Constitution in relation to the rest of India, including 498 states. If it is good enough for all of them, why should it not be good enough for him in Kashmir?
We are referred to the provision in the Constitution. The member from Bihar… said there was going to be compulsion; that we are going to hold a pistol at the head of Jammu and Kashmir saying that they must accept our terms. I have said nothing of the kind. How can we say that? What is the provision we have made in the Constitution?
Article 370-read it and read the speech of Shri Gopalaswami Ayyangar when he moved the adoption of that extraordinary provision. What was the position then? All the other states had come into the picture. Kashmir could not because of special reasons. They were: first the matter was in the hands of the Security Council; secondly, there was war; thirdly, a portion of Kashmir territory was in the hands of the enemy and lastly an assurance had been given to Kashmir that the Constituent Assembly would be allowed to be formed and the wishes of the people of Kashmir ascertained through a plebiscite. Those were the factors that had yet to be fulfilled and that was why a permanent decision could not be taken. It was a temporary provision.
He said categorically that he and also the Kashmir Government hoped that Jammu and Kashmir would accede to India just as any other state has done and accept the provisions of the Constitution. It is not a question of compulsion on our part. The Constitution of India does not say that whatever the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir would ask for, India would give. That is not the provision. The provision is–agreement, consent.
Certain proposals have been made today. Some of us do not like them. What are we to do? If we talk we are reactionaries, we are communalist, we are enemies. If we keep quiet and if a catastrophe comes after a year, then: you were a party to it, you kept quiet -therefore, you are stopped from saying anything.
I am most anxious, as anxious as anybody else that we should have an honourable, peaceful settlement with Kashmir. I realise the great experiment which is being made on the soil of Kashmir. Partition did not help anybody. I come from an area where sufferings are continuous, they are going on. We feel every day, every hour, the tragic effects of Partition, the tragic possibilities of approaching this national problem from a narrow, communal and sectarian point of view. Why did we not utter a single word against the policy of Sheikh Abdullah so long? I could have spoken. I came out of this government two and a half years ago. On the other hand, I supported, wherever I spoke publicly the policy of the Kashmir Government. I said that this was a great experiment which was going on and we have to keep quiet and see that the experiment is made a success. We must be able to show that India is not only in theory, but also in fact, a country where Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and everyone will be able to live without fear and with equality of rights. That is the Constitution that we have framed and which we propose to apply rigorously and scrupulously. There may be some demands to the contrary here and there. But do not regard that, whenever an attack is made on certain matters of policy, some narrow, sectarian, communal motive is prompting us.
Rather it is the fear that history may repeat itself. It is the fear that what you are going to do may lead to the ‘Balkanisation’ of India, may lead to the strengthening of the hands of those who do not want to see a strong united India, may lead to the strengthening of those who do not believe that India is a nation but is a combination of separate nationalities. That is the danger.
This is part of ThePrint’s Great Speeches series. It features speeches and debates that shaped modern India.