00000000 .76 Need for Settlement in Kashmir

00000000 .76 Need for Settlement in Kashmir

Before dealing with some of the vital issues before this Convention, I should like to speak brieby to those in this State and the rest of the country who claim that there is nothing left to settle in Kashmir, that the State is as irrevocably a part of India as, let us say, Uttar Pradesh. All those who give expression to this view are not really of one mind on the question. There are, for instance, the Bharatiya Jan Sangh and elements in the Congress and the Government of India who hold Article 370 of the Constitution of India should be abrogated and the State fully integrated' with the Union of India, and further that Indian citizens should be able freely to buy land and settle down in the State. There are others, like Chief Minister G.M. Sadiq, who asserts that the State is truly an integral part of India, though they concede that the quantum of autonomy that the State should enjoy is a negotiable matter. There are also several variations of this general theme, such as that (a) Jammu should be separated from the state or that (b) the area should be given a measure of regional autonomy within the State. There are also intermediate views between these proposals.

On the other hand, Sheikh Abdullah and many people associated with him do not agree that the State's accession was final and irrevocable. Had Sheikh Saheb been just an individual of little consequence, surrounded by a handful of other similar individuals, his opinions could have been ignored. But if one does want to indulge in wishful thinking, it has to be recognised, however unpleasant and inconvenient it might be to some, that Sheikh Abdullah continues to be a key-figure in the State because he still commands impressive mass support in the valley as well as in certain other parts of the State. That being so, for a large number of people the question of Kashmir cannot be deemed to have been settled, unless the Sheikh is also a party to the settlement.

It is not necessary to remind you that if there was one man more responsible than anyone else for the accession of the State to the Indian Union in 1947, it was Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah. Another historical event deserves mention in this context: at the time of Independence, while overwhelming numbers of Muslims throughout undivided India had rallied to the banner of Mr. Jinnah and subscribed to his two-nation two shining exceptions stood out in bold dissent: the North-West Frontier Province and the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Muslim masses in these two regions refused to be swept off their feet by the cry of a separate Muslim nation. That was due, let it be remembered, to the leadership of two deeply religious and towering, charismatic Muslims : Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Sheikh Abdullah.

After partition and the creation of Pakistan, it was Sheikh Abdullah again who led, in the face of Pakistani aggression, the people of his State to throw in their lot with India. It was his consistently courageous, non-communal and enlightened leadership that gives the opportunity today to every Indian to hold up Kashmir as a noble example of Indian secularism. Even over the recent incidents at the Srinagar Engineering College, Sheikh Saheb demonstrated once again his uncompromising opposition to communalism.

These events, to mention only a few of many similar ones, place the leadership of Sheikh Abdullah and his views in true perspective.

There is another salient fact about this State to which I should like to draw the attention of those who assert that there is nothing left to settle in regard to Kashmir. That is the fact of widespread and persistent discontent in the Valley. Part of the discontent is undoubtedly of the same nature that one finds, is some measure or other, all over the country. But there is also no doubt that the greater part of it is peculiar to the State and stems from the political situation in particular, from the lack of agreement with Sheikh Abdullah and the absence of genuine democracy and good government in the State. Some of the recent judgements on the election petitions in the State provide a significant commentary on the working of democracy here.

It seems to me that all those who loudly proclaim that Kashmir is an inalienable part of India should feel deeply concerned over this persistent discontinent. But regrettably one does not find such concern in these quarters. The majority of them believe in a policy of drift and pathetically trust time to settle all problems. It does not occur to them that time has not settled this particular problem in 21 years. Another 21 years are hardly likely to settle it along the path of indecision and opportunism. Indeed, if the situation is allowed to drift further and Sheikh Abdullah continues to be ignored, extremism would keep on growing apace and the consequences might well be incalculable. There are, of course, those for whom the solution of every problem lies in force. To them it is of little significance how popular Sheikh Abdullah is and how disaffected are his followers. Force in their reckoning will take care of all that. Such a naive and reactionary view appeals naturally to a certain type of mind. But the large-scale use of force, especially in such a sensitive spot of the world as Kashmir is, carries with it immense risks. There is also a real danger that the continued reliance on force in Kashmir may erode democracy in other parts of India, create and feed communal conflict, and become a running and festering sore in the body politic and economy of the country.