Thanks subhash
On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 11:54 AM Teesta Setalvad <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/humanrights-movement/CAA%2BSMqynA-eir09vauBBESAfv24UD24D9xn%2B%2BQfrDcnZkU3W0A%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/CAJGPqca%2BuQPbGqbzrsp1N%2BCVgY8M9uBa21o3tEoPnh01wEM4Bw%40mail.gmail.com.
