news details |
|
|
| It’s a white lie: Where is the so-called 1952 Delhi Agreement? | | STARK REALITY | | RUSTAM
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Oct 16: The Union Home Ministry has reportedly prepared a list of documents for the perusal of the newly appointed interlocutors for J&K. Some of these include the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, the Instrument of Accession, the 1952 “Delhi Agreement” and the 1975 Accord. Fair enough. The interlocutors do need to study all the relevant documents relating to Jammu and Kashmir. However, the question is: Where is the so-called 1952 Delhi Agreement everyone talks about without applying his mind? There exists no such agreement as the 1952 Delhi Agreement. It is a figment of imagination.
There is proverb “speak a lie a hundred times and it becomes a truth.” This is actually happening in J&K. The NC leaders, including Farooq Abdullah and Omar Abdullah, and their lieutenants wanted everyone to believe in something that didn’t really exist. And they have, it appears, succeeded in beguiling the Union Home Ministry and others. This is evident from the scores of political commentaries and reports that have been regularly appearing in several leading national dailies and magazines, as also evident from a number of TV programmes.
The case in point is the NC leaders’ oft-repeated assertion that the Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and the J&K Wazir-e-Azam, Sheikh Abdullah, and their aides got involved in negotiations between June 14 and July 24, 1952, to work out an arrangement that would regulate the Centre-State relations. The outcome of these lengthy and tortuous parleys was what they term as the “Delhi Agreement, signed on July 24 by Nehru and the Sheikh.” But this is one side of story. The other is far more interesting and startling. It, in the words of Dr Farooq Abdullah, is that “it was Parliament which (ratified the ‘Delhi Agreement” and) promised autonomy” and the “Bill (to this effect was) piloted (on July 24) by (the) then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.”
It needs to be recalled that it was in 1952 that the “fugitive” Dr Abdullah and his out-of-power Jammu and Delhi-based Kashmiri associates unleashed a no-holds-barred campaign to convince the Indian nation, Parliament, the authorities in the South and North Blocks and the media that the root cause of the “Kashmiris’ alienation” was the conspiracy hatched by New Delhi and its power-hungry Kashmiri agents to subvert the “Delhi Agreement” and bring J&K surreptitiously within the ambit of the Central laws and institutions. Ever since then, they have been using all the available fora and saying that there is but one way in which the separatists can be deflated, the Kashmir problem solved and the estranged Kashmiri Muslims won over and that is by redefining the Centre-State relations strictly in accordance with the lines indicated in the “Delhi Agreement.”
In effect, they (and their report on the state autonomy and the June 26, 2000 Assembly resolution on it) have been vouching for a dispensation that not only snaps all the state’s politico-constitutional ties with New Delhi and re-arm the Valley’s ruling elite with extraordinary legislative, executive and judicial powers but also makes it mandatory for the Central Government to meet all the financial needs of the Kashmiri Muslims.
It would be only desirable to discuss very briefly the circumstances under which Nehru and the Sheikh met during June-July, 1952, and what transpired between them. Such an exercise has become imperative to clear all the confusion, put things in proper perspective and establish that there exists no such accord as the “Delhi Agreement.”
It needs to be underlined that the whole exercise started on April 10, 1952, when the Sheikh made some highly inflammatory speeches at Ranbirsingh Pura in Jammu, repeatedly questioned the accession of J&K to India and poured venom on the Indian State. Highly infuriated, Nehru asked the Sheikh to meet him and explain his position. The Sheikh and Nehru did meet. It was during this and the subsequent meetings that the Sheikh raised certain issues concerning the Centre-State relations.
In fact, the Sheikh told Nehru that he and his party were for an autonomous J&K. He also urged the Indian Prime Minister to allow the J&K Constituent Assembly, which was set up in 1951 after wholesale rigging, to frame a constitution that could empower the state to exercise absolute control over all matters minus those relating to three subjects – defence, foreign affairs and communications.
To be more precise, the Sheikh wanted Nehru to accept at least 10 of his demands. These were: (1) The “State Subjects”, or persons domiciled in J&K, will be the citizens both of the State and India. (2) The “State Subjects” will have all the rights all over India but the “Non-State Subjects” will have no rights whatever in J&K. (3) The fundamental rights as contained in the Indian Constitution will not be conferred on the “State Subjects in their entirety.” (4) The State will have the power to “define and regulate the rights and privileges of the permanent residents of J&K.” (5) The State will be allowed to have its own flag. (6) The State will have the power to elect its own Head of State or Sadar-e-Riyasat, and the person so elected shall be answerable to it (read ruling party). (7) Article 356 shall not be applicable to J&K. In other words, the Centre will not intervene in the State in the case of internal disturbance. (8) Article 324 of the Indian Constitution will apply to the State only in case of elections to Parliament as well as the offices of the President and the Vice-President. (9) The Supreme Court of India will have limited jurisdiction over J&K. It will deal with only such disputes as were covered under Article 131 of the Union Constitution. (10) All the residuary powers will be the sole preserve of the State.
It is very important to note that both Nehru and the Sheikh had arrived at an agreed solution only as regards the aims and ideals and bare outlines of the new constitution. Numerous matters, which will form the basis of the Centtre-State relations, had been left undetermined as proper subjects for further discussion and explanation. Some of these issues such as the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, jurisdiction of the Election Commission, emergency powers, fundamental rights and the question of finance were yet to be clinched. It is true that Nehru expressed willingness to accept the Sheikh’s other demands. But it is equally true that he did so rather reluctantly.
It was on July 24, 1952, that Nehru informed the Lok Sabha as to what had transpired between him and the Sheikh. And what he told to the Lok Sabha has been taken by the NC to mean as a solemn agreement between New Delhi and Srinagar. This, despite the fact that there is no Constitution (Application to J&K) Order issued by the President of India to this effect. The Lok Sabha statement of the Indian Prime Minister, which was rather ambiguous on several issues, has no moral, legal or constitutional significance. Ministers do make all kinds of statements in and outside the legislature.
However, to write all this is not to suggest that there exists no written agreement between the Centre and the Sheikh. There exists one and this is the 1975 Indira-Sheikh Abdullah Accord. This has been implanted in its entirety. The Sheikh became the Chief Minister in 1975 under this very accord, despite the fact that his party (Plebiscite Front) did not have a single legislator either in the Assembly or in the Council.
The Union Home Ministry would do well to look into the parliamentary proceedings on the subject. It must stop terming the vague statement of Nehru as the “Delhi Agreement.” Even otherwise, what the Sheikh demanded was nothing but a local oligarchy no person who believes in people’s democracy would ever concede.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
