Daya Sagar
? 
What was the need for the Parliament of India to keep J&K out side Part- VII of Constitution of India in 1950? What is the reason for not including J&K in Part-VI of Constitution of India in 1956? To keep only few Constitutional provisions pertaining to J&K in a separate volume of Constitution of India, i.e the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir?
The question required to be answered with a cool mind, particularly under the present day circumstances, in simple and precise manner to settle the flares , what so ever, nursed against the Indian goodwill and rights. In continuation to our previous edition discussions, here are some more facts:
3. (a) Where as there were no apparent hindrances as regards J&K from the side of Maharaja Hari Singh of J&K or the Yuvraj Karan Singh like the one that existed. As regards, the State of Hyderabad / Travancore for securing a constitutional uniformity with respect to the State of J&K. Karan Singh, the regent of J&K on behalf of the Maharaja of J&K had on 25 November 1949 formally expressed total confidence in the Union (Republic) Constitution;(b) eve the Constituent Assembly of J&K had ratified on February 6, 1954. The 1947 accession was signed by Maharaja Hari Singh (the erstwhile prince State of British Indian Empire).
During the debate on draft (Article-306A), Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar had said in the Constituent Assembly on October 17, 1949 that, “Kashmir’s conditions are special. But that does not mean that ‘Kashmir State’ was special.” It was said that Kashmir’s conditions need special treatment, that did not mean that Kashmir as acceded State needed special treatment.
Maharaja of J&K did not sign the Instrument of Accession before August 15, 1947.
The ‘Quit Kashmir’ call was given against the Dogra Raj by Sheikh Mohd Abdullah in May 1946 and projected by some Congress leaders surely cultivated bitterness in the mind of the Prince of J&K. And to add to this the Senior Congress leaders suggested Maharaja to appoint Abdullah (National Congress) as the Prime Minister of J&K.
Even, the accession done by Maharaja was fair and legal in terms of Indian Independence Act 1947 of British Parliament. And in case, any one ventures to look into the social and administrative technicalities out side the terms of Indian Independence Act.
No doubts with the conditions prevailing right since 1946, the way the accession document signed by Maharaja on October 26 was handled by Delhi. The way Nehru rushed to UNO with so erroneously drafted complaint against Pakistan did make the Government in Delhi to get entangled in controversies and in the net of personal ambitions of some local leaders.
So, the then National Conference leadership had taken full advantage of its kinship with the then Prime Minister of India and the then Government for getting the provisions to J&K drafted.
It too could be thought that the political leadership of India (Congress) must be carrying the fatigue of the freedom struggle and might not have been able to exercise that wise vigil, shrewdness and care for that minute diplomatic detail while drafting the Constitution of India. It has been the inexperience, hurried actions and allegedly prime Indian leadership has been caught in the web of extending personal favours to some ‘close associates’.
The task for framing the Constitution of Independent Indian Democratic Republic by default resulted in many controversies regarding J&K affairs. Article-370 (Similar to Draft Article-306A) has been placed in Constitution of India and the way it has been treated thereafter.
All due to the fact that the then Government treated Abdullah above the interests of local people. No one from those times is there to answer and therefore, let us not enter in to inconclusive debates. In case answer to such like questions are explored or are obtained by Indian National Congress, it will not be difficult for Delhi to infuse desires for total constitutional uniformity like other Indian States in the minds and hearts of those people of J&K who have so far been made to see their selves as special citizens of India. And ofcourse, initiating processes would also push the separatists in far exile.
The Hindustanies will have to collectively settle for paying the price for the mistakes or let us say for the truthfulness of their elders instead of remaining lost in controversies.
(The writer is a senior coloumnist of Kashmir affairs and can be contacted at dayasagr45@yahoo.com).
