Tag Archives: Accession of Kashmir

July 25, 1947; When Mountbatten addressed The Chamber of Princes to choose either of the 2 dominions; India or Pakistan, there was NO THIRD OPTION

The Indian Independence Act was passed by the British Parliament on June 17, 1947 and received Royal assent on July 18, 1947; but the fate of the Princely States was largely decided on May 12, 1946 when the Memorandum on State Treaties and Paramountcy was presented to the Nawab of Bhopal and Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes in India by the Cabinet Mission. There was no pre-condition for accession except the decision of the rulers, though the importance of geographical contiguity was emphasized by Mountbatten to the rulers. The Mountbatten Plan of June 3, 1947 discussed the partition of India and advised the rulers of the states to join either of the two dominions in their own interest. On July 25, 1947 Mountbatten addressed a special meeting of the Chamber of Princes and reiterated the need to use the Instrument of Accession to accede to either of the two dominions. Maharaja Hari Singh joined India through this instrument, like the other Princely States.
There was no third option, Read the the address speech of  Crown Representative Lord Louis Mountbatten’s Address to A Special Full Meeting of The Chamber of Princes on July 25, 1947
 
“It is a Great pleasure and a great privilege for me to address so many Rulers, Dewans and Representatives of the States of India in this historic Chamber of Princes. It is the first and last occasion that I have the privilege of addressing you as crown Representative.
 
I would like to begin by giving you a very brief history of the negotiations I had conducted since I have been out here and the line that I have taken up about the States. There were two distinct problems that faced me. The first was how to transfer power to British India and the Second how to fit Indian States into the picture in a manner which would be fair and just to all concerned.
I dealt first with the problem of British India, because you will realize that until that problem was solved it was quite useless to try to start on a solution of the problem of the States. So I addressed my mind to the former. There had been universal acceptance among the States of the Cabinet Mission’s Memorandum of 12th May and when the political parties accepted the Statement of 3rd June they fully realized and accepted that withdrawal of Paramountcy would enable the States to regain complete sovereignty. That gave me a starting point from which to try and deal fairly with the states.
But before I got down to dealing with the States there was one other thing that I clearly had to do. I had to address myself to the problem of the mechanics of partition- a plan against my personal desires. As you all know, It took three years to separate Burma from India, in spite of the fact (as I can testify, as also His Highness of Bundi and other who fought in Burma) that there are no roads running between Indian and Burma. Nevertheless, it took three years to arrange that partition. It took two years to separate the province of Sind from Bombay. It took two years to separate the province of Orrissa from Bihar.
Gentlemen, we decided that in less than two and a half months we shall have to go through the partitioning of one of the biggest countries in the world with 400 million in habitants. There was a reason for the speed. I was quite certain that while the British overlordship remained no satisfactory conclusions could be reached psychologically between the parties. So once we got the two Governments set up and separated they would be able to try and finish off the details in an atmosphere of goodwill. Now, the Indian Independence Act releases all the States from all their obligations to the crown. The States will have complete freedom- technically and legally they become independent. Presently I will discuss the degree of Independence which we ourselves feel is best in the interests of your own states. But there has grown up during the period of British Administration, owing to the fact that the crown Representative and the Viceroy are one and the same person, a system of coordinated administration on all matters of common concern which meant that the sub-continent of India acted as an economic entity. That link is now to be broken. If nothing can be put in its place, only chaos can result, and that chaos, I submit will hurt the States first, the bigger the States the less the hurt and longer it will take to feel it-but even the biggest of the States will feel the hurt just the same as any small state. The first step was to set up some machinery by which it was possible to put the two future Governments of India- the Dominions of India and Pakistan-into direct touch with the States. So I conceived the scheme of setting up two states Departments within the future Governments. Please note that these States are not the successors of Political Departments. They have been set up simultaneously and side by side. While the Political department exercised functions relating to paramountcy on behalf of the Crown Representative, the States Departments are to take over those subjects gradually which have nothing to do with paramountcy but which will be concerned with relations with neighboring States and also provide the Machinery to negotiate in such matters. In India the States Department is under admirable guidance of Sardar Vallabhhai Patel with my own reforms Commissioner, Mr. VP Menon as Secretary. In Pakistan the Department is under Sardar Abdur Rab NIshtar with Mr. Ikramullah as the Secretary.
It was necessary to set up two States Departments, one in each Government, because States are theoretically free to link their future with whichever dominion they may care. But when I say that they are at liberty to link up with either of the Dominions, may I point that there are certain geographical compulsions which cannot be evaded. Out of something like 565 states the vast majority irretrievably linked geographically with the dominion of India. The problem therefore is of far greater magnitude with the dominion of India than it is with Pakistan. In the case of Pakistan the States although important, are not so numerous, and Mr. Jinnah, the future Governor-general of Pakistan, is prepared to negotiate the case of each State separately and individually. But in the case of India, where the overwhelming majority of the states are involved, clearly separate negotiation with each State is out the question.
The step that I took was to suggest that in the Bill Parliament- the Indian Independence Act- a clause should be put in which would enable certain essential agreement continue until renounced by either side. That was only done to ensure that there should be some continuity if in the short time available it was not possible to get the agreement through with every State representative. It does not replace the need for Standstill agreements; it gives a very slight breathing space. Now, I think it is no exaggeration to say that most Rulers and Dewans were apprehensive as to what their future would be when Paramountcy lapsed. At one time it appeared that unless they joined the Constituent Assembly and accepted the constitution when it was framed, they would be outside the organization and left in a position which, I submit, no state could view with equanimity -left out and having no satisfactory relations or contacts with either Dominion Government. You can imagine how relived I was , and I am sure you will yourselves have been equally relived when Sardar Vallabh bhai Patel on taking over the States Department made , if I may say so, a most Statesman like Statement of what he considered were the essentials towards agreement between the States and the Dominion of India. Let us turn for one moment to the Cabinet Mission Plan of 16 May 1946. In this Plan the proposal was that the States should surrender to Central Governments three subjects Defence, External Affairs and Communications. That was a plan which to the best of my belief, every Ruler and every State accepted as reasonable, fair and Just. I talked with so many Rulers and everyone felt that Defence was a matter that a State could not conduct itself. I am not talking of internal security but of defence against external aggression. I submit what if you do not link up with one or other of the Dominions; you may be cut off from any source of supplies of up-to-date arms or weapons.
“External Affairs” is inextricably linked up with Defence. “External Affairs” is something again which is outside the boundaries of India in which not even the greatest state can operate effectively. You can hardly want to go to the expense of having ambassadors or ministers or consuls in all foreign countries; surely you want to be able to use those of India or Pakistan. Once more I suggest that “External Affairs” is something that you have not dealt with since the formation of East India Company. It would be difficult to operate and will also be a source of embarrassment for you to have to take it up and it can only be managed by those who manage the Defence of the Country. I submit that if you take it up it will be a liability and not an asset.
The third subject is communications. “Communications” is really a means of maintaining the life-blood of the whole sub-continent. I imagine everybody agrees that the life of the country has got to go on. The continuity of communications is already has got to go on. The continuity of communications is already provided for to a certain extent in the Indian Independence Act; Therefore, I am sure you will agree that these three subjects have got to be handled for you for your convenience and advantage by a larger organization. This seems so obvious I was at loss to understand why some Rulers were reluctant to accept the position. One explanation probably was that some you were apprehensive that the Central Government would attempt to impose a financial liability on the States or encroach in other ways on their sovereignty. If I am right in this assumption, at any rate so far as some Prim concerned, I think I can dispel their apprehension misgivings. The Draft Instrument of Accession which I caused to be circulated as a basis for discussion (and not for publication) to the representatives of the States provides that the States accede to the appropriate Dominion on the three subjects only without any financial liability. Further, that Instrument contains an explicit provision that in no other matters has the Central Government any authority to encroach of the internal autonomy or the sovereignty of the States. This would, in my view, be a tremendous achievement for the States. But I must make it clear that I have still to persuade the Government of India to accept it. If all of you will co-operate with me and are ready to accede, I am confident that I can succeed in my efforts. Remember that the day of the transfer of power is very close at hand and, if you are prepared to come, you must come before 15 August.
I have no doubt that this is in the best interests of the States, and every wise Ruler and wise Government would desire to link up with the Great Dominion of India on a basis which leaves you great internal autonomy and which at the same time gets rid of your worries and cares over External Affairs, Defence and Communications. The whole country is passing through a critical period. I am not asking any State to make any intolerable sacrifice of either its internal autonomy or independence. My scheme leaves you with all the practical independence that you can possibly use and makes you free of all those subjects which you cannot possibly manage on your own. You cannot run away from the Dominion Government which is your neighbor any more than you can run away from the subjects for whose welfare you are responsible. Whatever may be your decision, I hope you feel that I have at least done my duty by the States.”
Source : JKNow
Advertisements

The 4 Myths on Jammu and Kashmir

We all know that there is a problem of Naxalism in Chhattisgarh. Do we call it a
Chattisgarh Problem” ? Bihar has poverty and backwardness. Do we call it a “Bihar
Problem” ? Then why do we call the problem of “Terrorism” and “Separatism” in the
state of Jammu and Kashmir as ‘Kashmir Problem’ ???

The ‘Kashmir Problem’ is a myth that was created by separatists, Jammu and Kashmir
politicians and Union Governments to protect their vested interests. Non-existent
‘Kashmir Problem’ was created and people were made to believe that the whole state
has some problem and the ‘accession is conditional’ and so on…

Two of the three regions of today’s Jammu and Kashmir have NO problem. 86,000 sq.km area of the state out of 1,01,000 sq.km has no problem. It’s only the small area of Kashmir valley, i.e 15,000 sq.km only, that has a problem of “Terrorism” and “Separatism”. 

Where exactly is the problem of “Separatism” ?

Only in the small 15% Muslim majority region of Kashmir valley and not in the Hindu and Buddhist majority 85% area of the rest of the state. There has never been a protest against India in Jammu or Ladakh.

JK

In summary, it is “Dilli Problem” – created by Dilli, nurtured by Dilli and carried on by Dilli. It actually refers to the bureaucrats, politicians and the so-called jammu and Kashmir experts based out of Dilli. Whenever the Nationalists become stronger and there is light at the end of the tunnel visible for all the problems, Dilli does something stupid giving morale boost to the separatists of Jammu and Kashmir.

When Nationalists were trying to integrate the state fully, Indian government sent three interlocutors, which gave a huge morale boost to the tiny group of separatists. The interlocutors report suggested to review all the Constitutional articles that got extended to Jammu and Kashmir since 1953. In reality, the need was to extend all the pending Constitution articles, not to review or remove any that is already extended. They even recommended the permanency of Article 370, with ‘special status’ via Article 371, acceptance of sovereignty of PoKJ on the areas illegally occupied by Pakistan.

The 4 Myths on Jammu and Kashmir:

1) Myth of Separatism: Everyone think of J&K as a separatist and anti-Indian state.
This is a wrong notion. Separatists are active only in Kashmir. Kashmir is the
smallest region of the state with a Muslim-majority (85% of area of J&K state is
Hindu and Buddhist majority). All the separatist leaders are from a single community
– Kashmiri speaking Sunni Muslims. All the other communities including Gujjar, Pahadi and Shia Muslims are fighting against the separatism and so-called alienation.

2) Myth of Dispute (so called ‘Disputed state’): There is a big confusion about merger of J&K with India even in the minds of the senior leaders of our nation. Raja Hari Singh of
J&K signed a document of accession which was the standard format used for the
accession of all the other Princely states with India. This was unconditional. The
only document which talks about asking the wishes of people is a letter from Lord
Mountbatten – this is not a collateral document and hence not legally substantial. On
6th February 1954, the J&K Constituent Assembly (duly elected by people of J&K)
ratified the accession of J&K to India. Hence, legally and constitutionally, J&K is
an integral part of J&K India.

3) Myth of Plebiscite: There is a general belief among intellectuals of India that we
have committed for a plebiscite in UN. There is no such commitment. India complained on 1st January 1948 to UN Security Council under UN Charter 35 to force Pakistan to withdraw their aggression from our lands. In 1958, UN Security Council proposed a resolution which called for unconditional withdrawal of Pakistan forces from POK, disbanding of AJK government, extension of J&K Government to AJK, resettling all the Indians who were forced to leave AJK, India to move required number of forces and J&K Government to conduct plebiscite under the supervision of UN Plebiscite Commissioner. Pakistan did not agree and act upon this UN proposal; hence there is no need for India to carry on any plebiscite.

4) Myth of Autonomy (so called ‘Special status’): The only purpose of Article 370 is to “extend the Union Constitution” to J&K. It neither gives special status nor guarantees
autonomy for J&K. The heading of Article itself says it is temporary and this needs
to be repealed. It was only a political fraud to keep the so-called Kashmir
separatism alive.

Till now in 2013, only around 260 articles of the India constitution have been
extended into Jammu and Kashmir state. India Constitution in total contains 444
articles in 22 parts, 12 schedules and 118 amendments. Incidentally, India has the
world’s longest Constitution ever written by any sovereign nation in the history of
mankind!

Why is “Gligit Baltistan” so strategically important?
Gilgit is the place where 6 Nations meet – India, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan,
Tazikistan and Tibet. Pakistan occupied Jammu & Kashmir (PoJK) is composed of Gilgit
-Baltistan Region and Muzaffarabad and Mirpur divisions of the former Princely State
of Jammu & Kashmir.

GB1

This northern area of Jammu and Kashmir state, had borders with Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Tajikistan (close enough), China (Xinjiang) and Tibet (now China
occupied). With this one region, India could have border even today with three
nations practically, plus Tajikistan of erst while Soviet Union only being 25 KMs
away. (Source: http://www.jammukashmirnow.org/pok/facts-about-gb/)

VK Menon Speech In Security Council (Longest speech ever in UN history):
Mr. V. K. Krishna Menon’s Marathon Speech Lasting For 8 Hours on Jammu and Kashmir at the United Nations Security Council’s Seven Hundred And Sixty Second Meeting On 23rd January 1957. (Source: http://www.jammukashmirnow.org/jammu-kashmir-in-un/vk-menon-speech-in-security-council/)

Jawaharlal Nehru’s meek surrender to Sheikh Abdullah:

A massive agitation called “Praja Parishad Andolan” (People’s Council Movement
started in Jammu and Kashmir when Jawaharlal Nehru surrendered to Sheikh Abdullah’s demands – namely, separate flag, separate constituion, separate dominion, no Indian election commission, no CAG, no Indian Administration Serive, no parliament election and even the Governor could not be appointed by the President of India like in other states. The denominations of Chief Minister (Mukhya Mantri) and Governor (Rajyapal) won’t be applicable in Jammu and Kashmir. Instead they are called “Wazir-e-Azam” (Prime Minister) and “Sadr-r-Riyasat” (President).

The current year 2013 marks 60th anniversary of “Praja Parishad Andolan”. 17th
November 1952 was the starting point of the final phase of the agitation under Pandit
Premnath Dogra. Initially, he was the RSS Sanghchalak of State of Jammu and Kashmir
and at that time president of main opposition party, Praja Parishad. The movement’s
slogan was that One nation cannot have Two Prime Ministers, Two Flags and Two
Constitutions (“Ek desh mein do Vidhan, do Pradhan aur Do Nishan nahi challengeA single country can’t have two constitutions, two prime ministers, and two National Emblems).

Majority of ordinary Indians are emotionally attached to J&K and want it as an integral part of Bharat. Most of the intellectuals in India are in a defeatist mood and suggest that we should leave Kashmir and move on. The year 2013 is the year of Bharat in J&K. We had two such situations earlier as well when the J&K could have been easily integrated with Bharat. The first was in 1947 when there was no sense of alienation and we could have extended the entire Indian constitution to J&K. The second time was in 1971 when 94,000 Pakistani troops surrendered to Indian Army and the Kashmiris were disillusioned with Pakistan. The political leadership of India failed to capitalize both these occasions.

The separatists have understood that India will never leave Jammu and Kashmir as it is a legal territory of India. Guns won’t work against India even after 40,000 terrorists and 35,000 civilians killed, and also about 6000 security forces martyred. 85,000 AK47 rifles, telescopic guns, pistols and rocket launchers and tons of RDX have been seized. Hence, there is no solution to the separatism problem by waging a war on India, be it direct or proxy via terrorism.

Today, terrorism in Kashmir is in its final days and there is no live support structure for terrorists in J&K. Separatists have learned three important things:-

1) India would not give up J&K. If they want to live in J&K, they have to live in India.

2) India cannot be defeated or made to bow down through arms struggle.

3) Nationalists of J&K cannot be taken for granted. Amarnath agitation was the turning point in the struggle between Nationalist and Separatist forces.

The need of the hour for all us Nationalists is to bring about awareness and change in our mindset – from “J&K bachao (save) to “J&K apnao (adopt)Visit Jammu and Kashmir atleast three times in a lifetime – once visit Ladakh, once Jammu and once Kashmir. Contact Jammu Kashmir Study Center for a customised itinerary.

Jai BhArat.

Courtesy: Presentation by Sri Arun Kumar (expert on Jammu Kashmir affairs), compiled from a book titled (The Myth of ‘Kashmir Problem’) by Jammu Kashmir Study Center, Bengaluru, published by Rashtrotthana Mudralaya. Website: http://www.jammukashmirnow.com/

PS: Watch these videos for more understanding of the History of Jammu and Kashmir and Accession topic:

Part-1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWQByoyEtQU

Part-2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfQh1dg07-I

Part-3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjLBcIr22So

Part-4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6GxvgYrhMg

Part-5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cOQR1G8WyY

Relentless RSS continues to safeguard Jammu and Kashmir:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q244KiwrNN0

The Perils of the Interlocutor’s Report on Kashmir

Source : Organiser

INTERLOCUTORS’ REPORT IS A PRECURSOR OF GIFTING KASHMIR TO PAKISTAN—DATTATREYA HOSABALE

$img_titleFlaying the report presented by three-member interlocutor team appointed by the Central Government, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) on June 1 said the move is a precursor of gifting Kashmir to Pakistan. While addressing a press conference in Nagpur’s Reshimbagh Sanghsthan organised for briefing about the Tritiya Varsh Sangh Shiksha Varg, RSS Sahsarkaryavah Shri Dattatreya Hosabale criticised the timing of the declaration of the report by the Centre.
Though the interlocutors had submitted the report much earlier, declaring this report at the time of spiraling prices and rising corruption is the deliberate and cunning attempt by the Central Government to divert people’s attention from Kashmir issue, he said.
A careful study of the recommendations made in this report will reveal that these recommendations exactly contradict the policies that were adopted by the Government of India till now. Demand for self-government by Mufti Mohammad’s PDP, National Conference’s demand for overall autonomy and demand for separate nation by Hurriyat groups have been approved indirectly in this report.
Shri Hosbale expressed utter surprise over the mention of Pak occupied Kashmir (PoK) as Pak administered one in this report by the interlocutors and raised doubt that whose language these people are speaking. He further informed that after an in-depth study of the report, the RSS would decide over its next mode of action.
(FOC)

 

Dustbin is the place for Kashmir interlocutors’ report

The report of the government nominated interlocutors on Kashmir mostly went along the expected lines. Except when they made atrocious suggestions which would throw the state politically back into the pre-1953 days.
The three interlocutors, to begin with had no locus standi on Kashmir. Two members of the three-member team were thoroughly exposed, when information came that they had accepted the hospitality and patronage of Ghulam Nabi Fai, the international lobbyist (now in US jail) for Pakistan on Kashmir. He is an ISI mole and was stationed abroad, mainly in the US to influence people and decisions in favour of Pakistan. Dileep Padgaonkar, and Radha Kumar, had been guests of Fai, the former more regular than the latter. The third member of the team was former information commissioner M.M. Ansari. He wanted to quit after the other two were exposed as Fai proteges.
The report by these three was put out on the Home Ministry website, a few hours after the parliament session ended. It was an obvious ploy to avoid a serious discussion in Parliament. The interlocutors claimed that they had met hundreds of people from all walks of life to come to any conclusion and suggestions on Kashmir.
The most unacceptable suggestion is to review all the rules and laws passed after 1952-53, the period which strengthened the position of Kashmir as part of India. After the campaign launched by the charismatic leader of Jan Sangh, Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee against the state of Jammu and Kashmir having a different emblem, flag and motto, than the Union of India, the Indian government acted to end this ‘duality.‘ Till then the chief minister of the state was called the prime minister of Kashmir. In this fight to integrate Kashmir into India irrevocably, Dr Mukherjee lost his life, in prison. Suspicions of foul play have been in the air since, not ever resolved.
The interlocutors want to undo this. They have suggested a return to the titles of Wazir-e-Azam and Sadar-e-Riyasat for the chief minister and governor of the state. In a most abhorrent stand, the Indian government nominees, paid from the Indian tax payers‘ money have sought to change the position of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir to Pakistan Administered Jammu and Kashmir. This extends the area of Pakistani operation to Jammu and ‘occupation‘ has become administration. How very smooth! It contradicts the sentiment of the Indian parliament, which in a 1994 resolution promised to win back the territories occupied by Pakistan.
The report glosses over the prevailing extremist communal atmosphere in the state, as dictated by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists which prevents Hindus and Sikhs from going back to their homes. It has no solutions to offer on ending terrorism in the valley. On the other hand, the report promotes ‘separateness‘ of the Kashmiris from the others. Kashmiriat is an old, cliched, meaningless expression, which is being flaunted whenever there is talk of diluting such laws as Article 370, which keep the state a sore thumb of the Indian Union.
The BJP and the RSS have wholly rejected the report and rightly so. The BJP, which took note of this report during the National Executive meeting in Mumbai passed a resolution condemning and damning the report. It highlighted six points in the report which made it absolutely unacceptable. The interlocutors have suggested that Article 370 should be made permanent.
The interlocutors’ report comes at a time when there are rumours that the UPA government is working on a secret agreement with Pakistan on withdrawing troops from Siachen, that it is mulling over the proposal to cut back troops in Kashmir and under pressure from state Chief Minister Omar Abdullah is planning to open free movement across the LoC, especially between PoK and Kashmir.
The state government too is doing its bit to bring Pakistan closer to Kashmir. The Chief Minister holds his cabinet meeting at LoC and kow-tows to the terrorists on the duration of the Amarnath Yatra.
The report of the interlocutors should be confined to the dustbin because the motive and commitment of at least two of its members are suspect. The team, to begin with, had no political sanction. The members were selected by the government probably because of their Fai-Pakistan connections. Kashmir is not a game for experimenting. There is but one way forward on Kashmir. And that is to integrate it fully into the Indian Union, by removing Article 370 and other special privileges bestowed upon it.

Other Related Article :

https://arisebharat.com/2010/10/11/accession-of-jk-with-india-is-full-final%E2%80%A6/