It is a bitter truth that the central and state leadership of Jammu and Kashmir have always remained hand in glove in subverting the democratic credentials of the country. This process was started as early 1947, when Maharaja Hari Singh was forced by the then central leadership to set Sheikh Abdullah free from Jail and to be installed as the emergency administration of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as a pre-condition for acceptance of accession of the state to India. Subsequently, the closed door meetings of two leaders (i.e. Sheikh Abdullah and Pandit Jawahar lal Nehru) and their speeches in J&K and Indian Parliament termed as Delhi Agreement though no official documents were signed. The insertion of Article 35A in a clandestine manner and linking it to the Agreement has never seen the light of the day. All the decision, discussion and debates on Jammu and Kashmir is fraught with umpteen number of betrayals that speaks volumes about how this strategically important State was dealt with the compromises. Adding to the list of fraud and compromises, the Kashmir Accord that is popularly known as Indira-Sheikh Accord is the biggest treachery among all when the reign of the state was handed over to a man; who did not even had a single member in the legislative assembly of Jammu and Kashmir.

 

Like many secretive things and subversion of the democratic and secular credentials, the ‘Kashmir Accord’ was signed between the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah. Hence, it is more popularly known by ‘Indira-Sheikh Accord’. The Accord was signed on behalf of Abdullah by Mirza Mohammad Afzal Beg and on behalf of the Indian government (headed by Prime Minister Gandhi) by G. Parthasarathy on 24 February 1975 in New Delhi. If we get into the precedence of the events that led to signing of this Accord we would perhaps find how Sheikh Abdullah had done everything possible to gain the throne of Jammu and Kashmir and the central leadership did everything possible to ensure that he remained the undeclared king of Jammu and Kashmir even if it cost the very ideals that India has cherished since it independence.

 

The incarceration of Sheikh sent a great shock to Sheikh and his puppets in the state. Hence, they floated an organization that primarily aimed at releasing the Sheikh Abdullah from Jail and his coronation again on the seat of PM (till 1965, Jammu and Kashmir was having post of PM later that nomenclature was done away with). The organization they called ‘Plebiscite front’ was floated by Mirza Mohammad Afzal Beg, a loyalist of Sheikh Abdullah. But with the signing of the Accord this front came to an end. As a corollary of this Accord, the elected representative was asked to step aside for the non-elected member to head the state. Congress forced Sayeed Mir Qasim to step down from the post of Chief Minister to pave the way for Sheikh Abdullah, who was anointed as the Chief Minister of the State on 24th February, 1975. Subsequent to the ascendance of Sheikh on the post of CM, in July 1975 the Plebiscite Front was dissolved.

 

No agreement was possible on the question of nomenclature of the Governor and the Chief Minister and matter is therefore, remitted to the Principals. After Sheikh became the CM, a committee was constituted for reviewing the laws extended to State after 1953 and it was inferred that no such correction/repealing/medication was necessary and no extensions made till then were bad in intentions/result. Further one would ask had Indira Gandhi taken any mandate from the Parliament for signing an agreement with an individual of Jammu and Kashmir. Did she take into confidence the people of J&K some of whom had been till then under the impression that Sheikh was dislodged in 1953 for an Act something like sedition? Similar type commitments had been made by Jawaharlal Nehru with Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah as claimed in 1947 and stated with regard to 1952 Delhi Agreement.

 

How could anyone make agreements at the personal level involving matters of National and international significance with individuals has never been asked by the people of India. But for all this it is the people of Jammu and Kashmir from all the three major regions (Jammu, Ladakh and Kashmir Valley) who have paid price and are paying even today. Similarly questions could be raised on the wisdom of the legislators who were in the J&K Assembly in June 2000 when a resolution on the Autonomy was passed without commenting on the Status of Indira-Sheikh Accord of 1974 that had been consigned to files after a review exercise. Such questions need to be answered to enable the common man of J&K making up his mind as regards the needs and affairs of JK. It is also the duty of New Delhi in their interest to reach the people to reestablish the truthfulness of New Delhi.