Shamsul Islam s article https://sabrangindia.in/article/while-rss-maligns-both-nehru-sardar-patel-article-370-why-congress-silent
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019, 11:46 Subhash Gatade, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Shyama Prasad Mukherjee’s Role: Official Myths on J&K Busted > <https://www.newsclick.in/index.php/shyama-prasad-mukherjees-role-official-myths-jk-busted> > Dear Prime Minister, nothing about Jammu & Kashmir is as your party sees > it. > Subhash Gatade <https://www.newsclick.in/author/Subhash%20Gatade> > > 11 Aug 2019 > [image: Syama Prasad] > <https://www.newsclick.in/sites/default/files/2019-08/Shyama%20Prasad%20Mukherjee_1.jpg> > > Economist and activist Jean Dreze, who has co-authored books with Nobel > laureates, such as Amartya Sen and Angus Deaton, was in the headlines for a > placard he carried to a protest rally in Delhi earlier this week. His > placard challenged the government's most critical justification for its > controversial move to scrap Article 35A and read down Article 370 in Jammu > and Kashmir (J&K). The placard displayed statistics that compare J&K with > Gujarat, which is Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit > Shah’s home state. Dreze clearly showed how Gujarat lags > <https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/jean-dreze-contests-amit-shah-with-gujarat-data/cid/1696457> > behind > J&K on a raft of development indices. > > Although Dreze’s data beautifully punctures the government's claim that > J&K’s special status was a hindrance to its progress, Modi in his address > to the nation on Wednesday night repeated the same argument, based on > dubious claims. For instance, his claim that J&K lags behind other Indian > states in matters of health services, education and so on, is patently > incorrect. > > Figures recorded in the National Family Health Surv > <https://www.bbc.com/hindi/india-49279020>ey (NFHS) has extended the > debate further and shown that J&K already excels many other Indian states > on several human development counts. Once again, this underlines that all > talk about how “development” will reach J&K after Article 370 is made > redundant is sheer humbug. > > The propagation of false information brings home the fact that the > government has gone very far to generate legitimacy for its decisions in > J&K. In his address to the nation, Modi also said that his government had > “fulfilled the dreams of [BR] Ambedkar as well as [the then Home Minister > Vallabhbahi] Patel”. > > Did Patel and Ambedkar really oppose Article 370? > > First of all, the very idea that a few members of a previous Cabinet can > be singled out by later-day historians or politicians to prove a point is > flawed, considering that a Cabinet is supposed to function on the principle > of collective responsibility. The alleged opposition of Ambedkar and Patel > to Article 370 is an unsustainable defence for any step taken by today’s > Cabinet, simply on this ground. > > Second, documentary evidence > <http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/the-disputed-legacy-of-vallabhbhai-patel/1188943/> > shows > that the then Cabinet led by former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru worked > on mutual consultations on the Kashmir issue. Besides, in Nehru’s day, all > powers were not centralised and concentrated in the Prime Minister’s > Office, as has become the norm today. Patel’s biographer Rajmohan Gandhi > points out: ‘Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Patel formed a crucial trimuvirate > that agreed that independent India would not be a Hindu Rashtra but one > that offered equal rights to all. After Gandhi’s departure and until > Patel’s death, Patel and Nehru differed on several matters but not on some > fundamentals. With the help of others including Ambedkar, Maulana Azad, > Rajendra Prasad and Rajaji, they entrenched secularism and equality in the > Constitution.” > > Forget Nehru for a moment. Even independent scholars and journalists admit > that Patel > <https://theprint.in/opinion/ironical-that-bjp-wants-article-370-revoked-sardar-patel-was-its-architect/74804/> > was > himself the “architect” of Article 370. > > Indeed, when India gained Independence, the future of three princely > states, namely Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir, remained unclear as far as > their accession to India and Pakistan was concerned. Documents that have > been declassified, including Cabinet and defence committee meeting records, > have now shown how Nehru and Patel worked closely to handle these three > states. Apart from the external aspects of the Kashmir issue, on internal > aspects too, “Nehru and Patel worked closely together despite their > differing emphases.” > > This is apparent if we revisit the process of drafting Article 370 of the > Indian Constitution which accorded special status to J&K as well. NG > Ayyangar, a Cabinet minister without portfolio, who was also a former dewan > of Kashmir, and the first Prime Minister of Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah, and > his senior colleagues conducted the actual negotiations for Kashmir over > several months in 1949. No doubt, these negotiations were difficult, but > Nehru seldom took a step without Patel’s concurrence. > > “When Ayyangar prepared a draft letter from Nehru to Abdullah summarising > the broad understanding reached, he sent it to Patel with a note: “Will you > kindly let Jawaharlalji know directly as to your approval of it? He will > issue the letter to Sheikh Abdullah only after receiving your approval,” > > Patel Crucial to Special Status for J&K > > Besides, Patel played an important role in getting J&K’s special status > cleared by the Indian Constituent Assembly. Contrary to the BJP-propagated > opinion, Patel intervened in a dispute between some Congress party members > who were opposed to the special status and Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, another > minister without portfolio who had been entrusted to deal with the issue, > was asked to ensure smooth passage of Article 370 > <http://www.firstpost.com/politics/bjps-kashmir-conundrum-article-370-is-stronger-than-partys-ambitions-1812089.html>, > which was then called 306. > > Further, not only Patel but even Ambedkar’s positions on Pakistan and the > Partition have been twisted into half-truths in order to strengthen the > position of today’s government. Any thorough reading of Ambedkar's > speeches > <https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2019/05/article-370-and-dr-ambedkar-a-factcheck/> > and > writings on both these issues, and the Constituent Assembly debates make it > clear that it contained no authenticated writing on Article 370, nor did > any document from his exhaustive literature. > > A quote attributed to him is in circulation but the claim it makes that he > had “refused to draft Article 370” is false. The quote in circulation, > which reads as if Ambedkar is addressing Kashmir, is as follows: “You wish > India should protect your border, build roads in your areas, supply food > and grains and that Kashmir should get equal status as India. But the > government of India should have only limited powers and Indian people > should have no rights in Kashmir. To give consent to your proposal, would > be treacherous thing against the interest of India and I, as a Law Minister > of India, will never do.” > > What is the Veracity of This ‘Quote’? > > Author and Ambedkarite scholar Pratik Tembhurne points out shocking > details: “The earliest ‘refusal to draft’ statement can be found in an > editorial in Tarun Bharat, mouthpiece of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh > (RSS) in 1991. It cites a verbal account by Balraj Madhok, an RSS veteran, > about Ambedkar and it emerged four decades after his death.” > > It would be the height of innocence to believe a verbal account by an RSS > ideologue on an issue that Ambedkar's own writings are silent about. > > Velivada > <http://velivada.com/2019/08/05/what-ambedkar-had-really-said-about-kashmir-issue/>, > an Ambedkarite web journal has similarly exposed the fake quote attributed > to Ambedkar. “It is almost on the same lines as BJP/RSS said [that] oh, Dr > Ambedkar also wanted demonetisation, which is an utter lie once again.” > > Syama Prasad Mukherjee’s role > > Modi in his speech to the nation had even emphasised that the scrapping of > Kashmir’s special status fulfils a dream of one of the Jana Sangh’s > founding fathers, Dr Syama Prasad Mukherjee. As we all know, Mukherjee died > in 1953 under mysterious circumstances after being arrested for opposing > the special status to Kashmir. > > What is normally missed is that Mukherjee > <https://www.newsclick.in/selfless-patriot> had initially accepted the > inevitability of Article 370. > > The noted lawyer and constitutional expert AG Noorani’s important book, > Article 370: A Constitutional History J&K, published by Oxford University > Press in 2011, clears many a confusion pertaining to J&K during the > tumultuous post-Independence era. It also examines Mukherjee's initial > consent to the article. > > No doubt, for the BJP, Noorani’s finding that Article 370 had the full > approval of Mukherjee as well as Patel is nothing short of blasphemy. > Interestingly, Jitendra Singh > <http://www.siasat.com/english/news/shyama-prasad-mukherjee-never-endorsed-article-370>, > the J&K spokesperson of the BJP and member of its national executive, had > lashed out at the contents of the book but even so, he had ended up > indirectly acknowledging that what the author had conveyed. Singh had said, > “The late leader had suggested to first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to > put a time-bound rider on Article 370 and to specify for how long it was > being envisaged.” > > It is worth emphasising that this was not for the first time that > Mukherjee’s consent to full autonomy to Kashmir had come up. In his > write-up in The Greater Kashmir, Balraj Puri > <http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2010/aug/8/leaf-from-the-past-4.asp>, > the veteran journalist from the state, had provided further details on the > issue: “Shyama Prasad’s prolonged triangular correspondence with Nehru and > Sheikh Abdullah on the status of the State, which was published at that > time by the party, is the most authentic evidence of his stand on the > issue. In his letter dated 9 January 1953 to both of them, for instance, he > wrote, ‘We would readily agree to treat the valley with Sheikh Abdullah as > the head in any special manner and for such time as he would like but Jammu > and Ladakh must be fully integrated with India.’ > > While Nehru rejected the idea, straightway warning against its > repercussions in Kashmir and its international implications, Abdullah sent > a detailed reply in which he said, “You are perhaps not unaware of the > attempts that are being made by Pakistan and other interested quarters to > force a decision for disrupting the unity of the State. Once the ranks of > the State people are divided, any solution can be foisted on them.” > > He further added that the prolonged correspondence is concluded with > Mukherjee’s letter to Nehru on February 17,1953, in which he suggested: > “Both parties reiterate that the unity of the State will be maintained and > that the principle of autonomy will apply to the province of Jammu and also > to Ladakh and Kashmir Valley. Implementation of Delhi Agreement—which > granted special status to the State—will be made at the next session of > Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly.” > > Nehru replied that he had agreed to the proposal for autonomy to the three > provinces (with concurrence of Abdullah) in July 1952. If Mukherjee had > realised his mistake, he should have withdrawn the agitation > unconditionally. Mukherjee was unwilling to do it as it amounted to > surrender. The deadlock was prolonged in order to provide what may be > called a ‘face-saving’ to the Jana Sangh. > > It is important to note that after the sudden death of Mukherjee, Nehru > had appealed to the people of Jammu to withdraw their agitation as their > demand for regional autonomy had been conceded. The state government > endorsed the appeal on July 2, when Praja Parishad leaders were released. > These leaders then went to Delhi, where they met Nehru on July 3. Thus, the > Praja Parishad agitation was withdrawn on the assurance of regional > autonomy and immediate implementation of the Delhi Agreement. > > But there are a number of ifs and buts: One factor which prevented its > implementation was that the Praja Parishad and Jana Sangh backed out of it. > According to Madhok, who later became the president of the Jana Sangh, the > party withdrew its commitment to autonomy following a directive from > “Nagpur”—a reference to the RSS headquarters, which are located in Nagpur. > The party continued a ceaseless campaign > <http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2010/aug/8/leaf-from-the-past-4.asp> > against > regional autonomy and Article 370. > > Till date, the BJP maintains that if the government had then heeded > Mukherjee’s opposition to Article 370, the Kashmir situation would have > been very different, but still the party has not gathered the courage to > admit that Mukherjee had conceded to the proposal in writing. > > First published here : > https://www.newsclick.in/index.php/shyama-prasad-mukherjees-role-official-myths-jk-busted > ) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "humanrights movement" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/humanrights-movement/CAJGPqcZ3PFA79vPSFm4psZHsBQue9%3D5CXvFpqEhWRHPuWJ4OiQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/humanrights-movement/CAJGPqcZ3PFA79vPSFm4psZHsBQue9%3D5CXvFpqEhWRHPuWJ4OiQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "humanrights movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/humanrights-movement/CAA%2BSMqynA-eir09vauBBESAfv24UD24D9xn%2B%2BQfrDcnZkU3W0A%40mail.gmail.com.
