news details |
|
|
| Nehru patronized Sheikh to keep uncertainty linger | | Congress & Kashmir -III | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Oct 19: Ironically, Sheikh Abdullah was to claim at one stage that he was willing to ratify the state accession to India but he was prevented from doing so by Nehru. After his release from internment for the second time, he said on April 15 1964. "I sought to ratify the, accession and other commitment of mine through the Constituent Assembly. It was the Government of India which, contested in the, Security Council as well as in Parliament the Assembly's right to do so." He disclosed the same information to or Syama Prasad Mooker Jee in his correspondence with the latter in 1953. Nehru Confirmed this himself at Press conference on June 21, 1952: “When the Constituent Assembly met for the first time I might inform YOLl that it was its intention to pass a resolution forthwith confirming the state's accession to India. We asked it not to do it. so as not to be embarrassed before the United Nations."
This is not all. To Nehru must also go the credit of incorporating the most divisive of all instruments, Article 370, in the Constitution? Once again, he did so surreptitiously, without taking anybody into confidence apart from Gopalaswami Ayyangar and keeping Sardar Patel totally in the dark about his intentions of granting Jammu & Kashmir some sort of a specia1 status. Then there is the deal he snuck with Sheikh Abdullah in July 1952 a deal that was to be given the official nomenclature’s of "Delhi Agreement". "
When it became apparent that yet another blunder had been committed by Nehru, he found himself on the defensive. Faced with problem of his own making, he took refuge behind the convenient excuse, "1 do not know." In the end, he had to admit his failure on the Kashmir front (by then he had been outmaneuvered by the wily and duplicitous Sheikh), and he did so in a letter to Sheikh Abdullah on April 25, 1952: "I have not thought of Kashmir or of you in that way (which way'?) and so I am rather at a loss how to act when the very foundation of my though and action has been shaken up." But by the nit was too late. The damage had been done. It 'was made worse by the agreement that fol1owed that year. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
