news details |
|
|
| Delhi murdered Democracy to hit Jammu below the belt | | May 27, 1949 A Black Day | | Rustam
JAMMU, Mar 29: A close scrutiny of the proceedings of the Indian Constituent Assembly reveals that the issues concerning Jammu and Kashmir were discussed twice - first on May 27, 1949, and finally on October 17, 1949. It also shows that the focus on this state on May 27 was far more sharp and revealing than what it was on October 17, despite the fact that the issue under discussion was highly sensitive and controversial and that the subjects discussed were two and not just one. (Article 370 was sensitive in the sense that it was designed to give Jammu and Kashmir the right to have its own constitution and a flag other than the national flag. This Article was adopted in no time, despite the fact that a Muslim member of the Constituent Assembly Maulana Hasrat Mohani had warned that the grant of special status to Kashmir (on the score of religion) would enable it to "assume independence afterwards" (Constituent Assembly Debates, Book No 5, Vol. Nos. X-XII, 6 Oct 1949 to 24 Jan 1950, reprinted by Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, Second Edition, 1989, p. 428).
It would be only desirable to ignore what transpired during the rather brief and virtually smooth discussion on Article 370 as the matter is too well known and reflect on the May 27 little known, but highly relevant issue, which kept the Indian Constituent Assembly really engrossed in squabbles and tortuous discussions for hours together. Such an exercise is imperative to understand the reasons behind the 63-year-old complaint of the people of Jammu and Ladakh that "they have no place whatever in the country's polity" and that "it is New Delhi which is responsible for their socio-cultural and politico-economic degeneration and under-development".
It is important to note that the Jawaharlal-led Congress Government at the center did not come up to the expectations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Rather, it murdered democracy in the state and hit the people below the belt. The people of the state were not given the right to send representatives of their own choice to the Indian Constituent Assembly. As a matter of fact, the Congress-dominated Constituent Assembly did not at all involve the people of the state in the process of Indian Constitution-making. Nor did it follow the election rules, which the 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan had laid down for the princely states. On the contrary, it vouched for a formula that was nothing but a negation of what the Congress had all along stood for. (It had always talked in terms of people's democracy.) It only pleased one person, Sheikh Abdullah, and his political formation, the Kashmir-based and highly anti-Jammu and parochial National Conference.
How else would one interpret the adoption on May 27, 1949 of the motion moved by the Minister of Kashmir Affairs, Gopalaswami Ayyangar, and the speech he made while introducing it? The motion read: "Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 4 of the Constituent Assembly Rules all the seats in the Assembly allotted to the State of Kashmir (not the State of Jammu and Kashmir) may be filled by nomination and the representatives of the State to be chosen to fill such seats may be nominated by the ruler of Kashmir on the advice of his Prime Minister" (read Sheikh Abdullah).
Ayyangar's speech went like this: "we have to choose a method by which we could get representatives into this Assembly. We are today in a position to bring to this House four persons who could be said to be fairly representative of the population of Kashmir. The point that I wish to urge is that, while two of the representatives would in any case under the present rules be persons who could be nominated by ruler, we are suggesting that all the four persons should be nominated by the ruler on the advice of his Prime Minister. The Prime Minister happens to represent the largest political party (read National Conference) in the State…Apart from that, we have got to remember that the Prime Minister and his government (read NC Government) are not based upon the Jammu and Kashmir Praja Sabha (Legislative Assembly) but based rather upon the fact that they represent the largest political party. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the head of this party, who is also the Prime Minister, should have the privilege of advising the ruler as to who would be proper representatives of Kashmir in the Constituent Assembly…"
It may be pointed out that this motion had generated a lot of heat in the Constituent Assembly, which debated upon this issue for hours as objection after objection was raised against the suggested formula. Members of the Assembly such as Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (west Bengal), HV Kamath (CP and Berar) and Prof KT Shah (Bihar) vehemently opposed the official motion on five counts. First, it provided for a mechanism that was not in conformity with "such rules as contained in Rule 4 of the Constituent Assembly Rules". According to Rule 4, the seats allotted to the princely States had to be filled up not less than half by the elected members of the legislature of the States concerned and the remainder to be nominated by the ruler himself.
Second, it made an unjust and invidious distinction between Jammu and Kashmir and other princely States. Third, it was designed to empower one individual, Sheikh Abdullah, to take a decision on who should or should not represent the State in the Constituent Assembly, as also to determine the future politico-constitutional ties between the State and New Delhi. Fourth, for its general distrust of the people and the duly constituted Praja Sabha. The motion was, undoubtedly, designed to render the people and their elected Assembly ineffective. Finally, for its potential of harming the Indian interest in Jammu and Kashmir and giving a cause to the forces inimical to the country to challenge its stand that the people of the state were solidly behind it. (To be concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
