08 Jul 2016 13:43:59



On 6th October Omar Abdullah, the imposed heir apparent to the power levers in the trouble torn state, on the floor of Jammu and Kashmir Assembly announced that although Jammu and Kashmir had acceded to, it has not merged with India. This is a very significant statement from an incumbent Chief Minister on the floor of the Assembly who by and large is being hailed as an undisputed Indian in the valley dominated by separatist politics. This statement has surprised many. Several people are attempting to defend the reprehensible act.  Reasons apart, what are the facts? Is there any doubt about the finality of Accession of Jammu Kashmir with rest of India? Let us find.

On Friday, the 27th May 1949The Constituent Assembly of India met in the Constitution Hall, New Delhi, with its President, The Honourable Dr. Rajendra Prasad in the Chair. They were discussing amendment to the Constituent Assembly Rules so as to choose a method by which representatives from J&K could be secured into the Constituent Assembly. Prof. K. T. Shah a distinguished member from Bihar who was acquainted with Kashmir State and its governance for fifteen or more years moved an amendment to the official motion moved by N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar.

In his speech  Prof. Shah said, I come to a very difficult and delicate matter, namely the suggestion that the election be, pending the holding of a plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations Organisation and without prejudice……

Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya interrupted him instantly by raising a point of order saying The reference to the plebiscite and to the United Nations Organisation has nothing whatever to do with the representation proposed to be given to the Kashmir State in this motion”. Dr. Rajendra Prasad asked prof Shah, What has the honourable Member to say on the point of order?”

Prof. K. T. Shah said,  It has been the declaration of the highest authority in India also that the accession of the State made by the Maharaja, who was the complete constitutional head on the day that that accession was agreed to, was subject to confirmation by the result of the plebiscite.

Prime Minister Pt Jawaharlal Nehru and the person repeatedly quoted by Kashmir separatists rose to declare, That is absolutely incorrect– cent per cent incorrect. I am amazed, surprised and astounded that such a statement is made by Professor Shah.

Prof. K. T. Shah replied, If i am wrong I am open to correction. We ourselves have accepted the United Nations decision to hold this plebiscite and an Administrator has been appointed. If I am in your hands.

The Chair ruled, The point is whether the accession was conditional. The accession, so far as I understand from the Prime Minister was unconditional and complete. The result of that accession may be altered as a result of the plebiscite, but the accession as such was complete and final. Therefore the question of the accession does not arise.”

  1. Gopalaswami Ayyangar in his reply to the debate said, “Sir, I have really little to say. But I think a few words have to be said about one or two observations that were made by my honourable Friend, Maulana Hasrat Mohani. He doubted whether the Prime Minister’s description of this accession as being complete is altogether correct. I maintain that it is perfectly correct. The accession was offered by the Maharaja and it was accepted by the Governor General of the time. I have a copy of that document before me. It is an absolutely unconditional offer. But my honourable Friend referred to what has happened since and I know my other honourable Friend Prof. Shah also seemed to imply what the Maulana contended. Now the correct position is this. The accession is complete. . I maintain that the statement that the accession at present is complete is a perfectly correct description of the existing state of things.

It was May 1949. All the principal players of the era were present. Maharaj Hari Singh was still the ruler of J&K. so why do some people doubt the process and become furious as soon as they listen that ˜Jammu Kashmir is integral part of India.

Nehru- Abdullah family politics

Mulish insistence by Nehru-Gandhi family in rest of the country and Sheikh Clan in J&K to stick to power at any cost is the root cause of all the troubles nation is facing in Kashmir. Recent trouble is also the outcome of ascendancy of an inefficient, incompetent and incongruent Omar Abdullah to the pivotal post of the CM of a sensitive state like Jammu Kashmir. This shortsighted critically self-centered move believed to have been taken by Rahul Gandhi loyalists keeping his future in mind has squandered all the gains brave security forces had made at huge costs. Political novice Omar grabbed the chair but refused transform himself according to the requirements of the job. He instead relied on his family friends and relations in Delhi to defend him.  And to ensure his continuity in office Omar began to spend more time in New Delhi than n Srinagar. People waited for the promises to b e delivered. Opposition PDP was not patient. In the inefficiency of Omar both PDP and separatists found the God gifted opportunity to dethrone NC government. Stone pelting was the resultant reaction that was orchestered in such a way that both action and inaction by the government fuelled the unending circle of violence. With the spread of violence across valley NC cadres and leaders dissatisfied with omar joined the protestors further exposing the laxk of leadership skills of the CM. all this further widened the gap between CM and the people.  In an attempt to bridge this widening gap Omar Abdullah relied upon the time tested formula of this family. When in trouble question the accession. By this they presume to cater to the sentients of Kashmir Muslims. Deli and rest of the country they know and rightly so, that family friends in Nehru-Gandhi parivar will take care of. That is what exactly he did on 6th October in the state Assembly. Sheikh Abdullah had mastered this act earning for himself the phrase that He was a Secularist in Delhi; nationalist in Jammu and communal separatist in Kashmir.

Accession the Real story

Is the process of Accession of J&K incomplete in any respect? Is the process reversible? Let us find answers. That at the time of Indian independence, India was divided into “British India”, under the direct control of the India Office in London and the Governor-General of India and  the “Princely states” over which the Crown had suzerainty, but which were under the control of their hereditary rulers. Partition plan under infamous two nation theory applied to the British India only. The relationship between the princely states and the crown remained regulated by the principle of paramountcy and the various treaties between the British crown and the states. Neither paramountcy nor these arrangements could continue after Indian independence. The British government therefore decided that paramountcy, together with all treaties between them and the princely states, would come to an end upon the transfer of power. The termination of paramountcy would have in principle meant that all rights that flowed from the states’ relationship with the British crown would return to them, leaving them free to negotiate relationships with the new states of India and Pakistan “on a basis of complete freedom”.

But breaking links between independent India and the princely states would have meant denial of the historical unity of the territory. Also the development of trade, commerce and communications during the 19th and 20th centuries had bound the princely states to British India through a complex network of interests. Agreements relating to railways, customs, irrigation, the use of ports, and other similar agreements would disappear, posing a serious threat to the economic life of the entire subcontinent. Mountbatten understood this reality and declared that the British Government would not grant dominion status to any of the princely states, nor would it accept them into the British Commonwealth. Also Indian leaders, such as C. Rajagopalachari, argued that as paramountcy “came into being as a fact and not by agreement”, it would necessarily pass to the government of independent India, as the successors of the British. This was essentially the assertion of an ancient nation rediscovering itself.

Patel and Menon backed up their diplomatic efforts by producing treaties. Two key documents were produced. The first was the Standstill Agreement, which confirmed that the agreements and administrative practices that existed as between the princely state in question and the British would be continued by India. The second was the Instrument of Accession, by which the ruler of the princely state in question agreed to the accession of his kingdom to independent India. It is this Instrument of Accession that has been signed by the Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of J&K. This deed makes the state an integral part of India no matter who likes it or dislikes. Once a princely state becoame an integral part of India after signing the Instrument of Accession it forefeited the right to reverse the decision. This applies to the state of Jammu and Kashmir also.

Now the subsequent developments are an ongoing process that deals with with routine administration and persuing the goal of ultimate human development. The arrangements to achieve that objective could be altered according to new requirements. But at no time can religion be made a basis of further dividing the country as is being sought by Kashmir separatists. So called mainstream parties of Kashmir will do better if they desist from making political gains by entering into competitive separatism. They shall infact speak truth to the common man in valley so as to isolate trouble makers. This will save precious innocent lives and help people join march to development.

JKN Twitter