The Answer Lies In Autonomy

Sheikh Abdullah’s attempt to reinforce secularism by Kashmir’s example requires exceptional unity of direction in New Delhi

AJIT BHATTACHARJEA
Journalist and Author

IN HIS article in TEHELKA, Arun Jaitley traces the problems we face in Kashmir to Jawaharlal Nehru. In a sense he is right. Kashmir would not have been part of India if Nehru had not been Prime Minister in October 1947, when the state was faced with the decision of whether to accede to India or Pakistan. It would have gone to Pakistan. It was the commitment of Gandhi and Nehru to secularism that attracted the Muslim people of Kashmir to link their future with India despite Partition. The following extracts from the preface to my biography of the great Kashmiri leader, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, confirm this.

The contrast between the cordial atmosphere of Srinagar and the foetid communal fear still stalking Delhi in October 1947, from where I had flown, exceeded even the first enchanting impression of the beauty of the Valley. It provided a ray of hope that secularism could survive in India. In the capital of India, as in much of the north of the country, Muslims were under attack in reprisal for the bloody eviction of Hindus and Sikhs from the newly-born Islamic state of Pakistan. Yet, in the capital of Kashmir, there was no sign of religious tension. Its Muslim inhabitants were helping newly arrived elements of the Indian army, Hindu and Sikh, to defend the city against the advancing Pathan lashkars. The invaders came from the tribal area between Pakistan and Afghanistan and had been armed by Pakistan. Though portrayed as fellow Muslims intending to free Kashmiris from the oppressive rule of a Hindu Maharaja, they plundered all who came in their path.

The man whose charismatic leadership strengthened this unique delinking of nationalism from religious intolerance was Sheikh Abdullah. His commitment to secularism and socialism, and his campaign for azaadi — freedom from oppression — motivated his people to rebuff the appeal of religious politics. The foundations of the transformation were laid by changing the name of his party from Muslim Conference to Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, open to all communities. The historic date was June 11, 1939. The manifesto of the new party was no less revolutionary. Echoing the socialist thinking of the 1930s, it promised, among other reforms, land to the tiller without compensation, a commitment that laid the foundations of the party’s popularity among the vast majority of Kashmiris. Abdullah came to be known as Sher-e-Kashmir, Lion of Kashmir.

Secularism was further strengthened and history made on October 26, 1947, when, with the support of the Abdullahs, the predominantly Muslim state of Jammu and Kashmir joined the Indian Union instead of the adjoining Islamic state of Pakistan. Gandhi was moved to tell a prayer meeting on December 29, 1947: “It must be evident to the outsider, as it is to me, that Kashmir must be lost to the invaders, otherwise called the raiders, if Sheikh Abdullah Saheb’s effort to hold together the Muslims and the minority [in the Valley] fails . . . My sole hope and prayer is that Kashmir become a beacon light in this benighted subcontinent.”

Earlier, reacting to continuing fratricidal killings in Delhi and elsewhere, Gandhi had besought his Maker on his birthday, October 2, to take him away; he could not witness them any longer. And Nehru announced that he would resign if people did not have faith in his secular leadership. But as long as he was at the helm of affairs, India would not become a Hindu state: “I am at liberty to give up my responsibility if the people of India cease to have faith in the lead that I give. If they do not subscribe to my ideals and are not prepared to cooperate with me, then I will have no choice but to resign and fight for the establishment of a state where every citizen enjoys equal rights irrespective of his religion.”

On November 2, a week after the first contingent of indian troops landed in Srinagar, a revitalised Prime Minister broadcast to the nation: “It would be well if this lesson was understood by the whole of India which has been poisoned by communal strife. Under the inspiration of a great leader, Sheikh Abdullah, the people of the Valley, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh, were together in the defence of their common country against the invader.” Secularism had become an article of faith for Sheikh Abdullah’s party and the basis of his friendship with Nehru. They formed a volunteer militia to resist the tribal attack and provide transport and guides to the Indian soldiers . . .

Sheikh Abdullah rose to be Prime Minister of the state. But he became the target of communal forces let loose by the decision to partition British India. Against this background, the bold attempt to reinforce secularism by Kashmir’s example required exceptional unity of direction and purpose in New Delhi. Instead, the rise of Abdullah evoked contrary reactions. While Nehru backed him for his secular and socialist commitment, his powerful Home Minister, Vallabhbhai Patel, distrusted his demand for autonomy and represented forces that doubted the loyalty of Muslims to India after Partition. Some Congress leaders sided with Patel, together with Hindu communal leaders. Differences on Kashmir with Nehru led Patel to offer to resign.

In May 1951, Abdullah made a historic address to the inaugural session of the Kashmir Constituent Assembly. While regarding the option of independence as attractive, he described it as impractical and stressed the advantages of an autonomous link with India, despite Muslims being in a minority in the country. He rejected joining Pakistan outright. The address was prefaced by recalling the lasting impress of Kashmir’s traditions of tolerance, later known as kashmiriyat. But kashmiriyat also meant resisting too close an integration with India. It was Nehru’s recognition of Kashmir’s desire for self-determination that had persuaded Abdullah to link its fate with India’s. This was reiterated in one of Nehru’s great pronouncements in the Indian Parliament on August 7, 1952. Speaking on the relationship between Kashmir and India in the context of proposals for plebiscite, he said:

SO WHILE the accession was complete in law and in fact, the other fact that has nothing to do with the law remains, our pledge to the people of Kashmir — if you like to the people of the world — that this matter could be affirmed or cancelled by the people of Kashmir according to their wishes. We do not wish to win people against their will with the help of armed force; and if the people of Kashmir wish to part company with us, they may go their way and we shall go ours. We want no forced marriages, no forced unions”.

Yet, when Abdullah demanded the special autonomous status promised when the state acceded, the campaign to dub him antinational gathered strength. He had countered Muslim communalism in the Valley but was falling victim to Hindu revivalism in India. Doubts about him were voiced in the Indian Parliament.

A letter from Abdullah to Nehru dated July 10, 1950, expressed the predicament in which he was placed: “It is clear that there are powerful influences at work in India who do not see eye to eye with you regarding your ideal of making the Union a truly secular state and your Kashmir policy . . . I have several times stated that we acceded to India because we saw there two bright stars of hope and aspiration, namely Gandhiji and yourself, and despite our having so many affinities with Pakistan we did not join it because we thought our programme will not fit their policy. If, however, we are driven to the conclusion that we cannot build our state on our own lines, suited to our genius, what answer can I give to our people?”

In his memoirs, Flames of the Chinar, Sheikh Abdullah claims: “One can say without fear of contradiction that the two-nation theory suffered its first defeat in Kashmir. Kashmir played a vital part in keeping the torch of secularism lit in India.”

Democracy means rule by consent and secularism is the glue that holds different groups together. That is the lesson of the early days of Kashmir’s association with the Indian Union . . . But increasing intolerance is eroding the glue in many parts of the country today. We need men with the vision of Nehru and Abdullah to remake history by trying to understand each other and reconcile differences without resorting to violence.