Speech of Sheikh Mohammad
Abdullah in the Constituent Assembly
Sheikh Abdullah
Sheikh Abdullah addressing a gathering.
We must remember that our struggle for power has
now reached its successful climax in convening of this
Constituent Assembly. It is for you to translate the
vision of New Kashmir into a reality, and I would
remind you of its opening words, which will inspire
our labors:
- "We the people of Jammu & Kashmir,
Ladakh and the Frontier regions, including Poonch
and Chenani Illaqas commonly known as Jammu and
Kashmir State in order to perfect our union in the
fullest equality and self-determination to raise
ourselves and our children forever from the abyss
of oppression and poverty, degradation and
superstition, from medieval darkness and
ignorance, into the sunlit valleys of plenty,
ruled by freedom, science and honest toil, in
worthy participation of the historic resurgence of
the peoples of East, and the working masses of the
world, and in determination to make this our
country a dazzling gem on the snowy bosom of Asia,
to propose and propound the following constitution
of our State.'
This was passed at the 1944 session of the National
Conference in Srinagar. Today, in 1951, embodying
aspirations, men and women from the four corners of
the state in this Constituent Assembly have become the
repository of its sovereign authority. This Assembly,
invested with the authority of a constituent body,
will be the fountain-head of basic laws laying the
foundation of a just social order and safeguarding the
democratic rights of all the citizens of the State.
You are the sovereign authority in this State of
Jammu and Kashmir; what you decide has the irrevocable
force of law. The basic democratic principle of
sovereignty of the nation embodied ably in the
American and French Constitutions, is once again given
shape in our midst. I shall quote the famous words of
Article 3 of the French Constitution of 1791:
- "The source of all sovereignty resides
fundamentally in the nation...Sovereignty is one
and indivisible, inalienable and imprescriptable.
It belongs to the nation."
We should be clear about the responsibilities that
this power invests us with. In front of us lie
decisions of the highest national importance which we
shall be called upon to take. Upon the correctness of
our decisions depends not only the happiness of our
land and people now, but the fate as well of
generations to come.
What then are the main functions that this Assembly
will be called upon to perform?
One great task before this Assembly will be to
devise a Constitution for the future governance of the
country. Constitution-making is a difficult and
detailed matter. I shall only refer to some of the
broad aspects of the Constitution, which should be the
product of the labors of this Assembly.
Another issue of vital import to the nation
involves the future of the Royal Dynasty. Our decision
will have to be taken both with urgency and wisdom,
for on that decision rests the future form and
character of the State.
The Third major issue awaiting your deliberations
arises out of the Land Reforms which the Government
carried out with vigor and determination. Our
"Land to the tiller" policy brought light
into the dark homes of the peasantry; but, side by
side, it has given rise to the problem of the
landowners demand for compensation. The nation being
the ultimate custodian of all wealth and resources,
the representatives of the nation are truly the best
jury for giving a just and final verdict on such
claims. So in your hands lies the power of this
decision.
Finally, this Assembly will after full
consideration of the three alternatives that I shall
state later, declare its reasoned conclusion regarding
accession. This will help us to canalize our energies
resolutely and with greater zeal in directions in
which we have already started moving for the social
and economic advancement of our country.
To take our first task, that of
Constitution-making, we shall naturally be guided by
the highest principles of the democratic constitutions
of the world. We shall base our work on the principles
of equality, liberty and social justice which are an
integral feature of all progressive constitutions. The
rule of law as understood in the democratic countries
of the world should be the cornerstone of our
political structure. Equality before the law and the
independence of the judiciary from the influence of
the Executive are vital to us. The freedom of the
individual in the matter of speech, movement and
association should be guaranteed: freedom of the press
and of opinion should also be features of our
Constitution. I need not refer in great detail to all
those rights and obligations, already embodied in New
Kashmir, which are Integral parts of democracy which
has been defined as 'an apparatus of social
organization wherein people govern through their
chosen representatives and are themselves guaranteed
political and civil liberties".
You are no doubt aware of the scope of our present
constitutional ties with India. We are proud to have
our bonds with India, the goodwill of those people and
government is available to us in unstinted and
abundant measure. The Constitution of India has
provided for a federal union and in the distribution
of sovereign powers has treated us differently from
other constituent units. With the exception of the
items grouped under Defense Foreign Affairs and
Communications in the instrument of Accession , we
have complete freedom to frame our Constitution in the
manner we like. In order to live and prosper as good
partners in a common endeavor for the advancement of
our peoples, I would advise that, while safeguarding
our autonomy to the fullest extent so as to enable us
to have the liberty to build our country according to
the best traditions and genius of our people, we may
also by suitable constitutional arrangements with the
Union establish our right to seek and compel Federal
cooperation and assistance in this great task, as well
as offer our fullest cooperation and assistance to the
Union.
Whereas it would be easy for you to devise a
document calculated to create a frame work of law and
order, as also a survey of the duties and rights of
citizens. It will need more arduous labor to take
concrete decisions with regard to the manner in which
we propose to bring about the rapid economic
development of the State and more equitable
distribution of our national income among the people
to which we are pledged. Our National Conference avows
its faith in the principal that there is one thing
common to men of all castes and creeds, and that is
their humanity. That being so, the one ailment which
is ruthlessly sapping the vitality of human beings in
Jammu & Kashmir is their appalling poverty, and
if, we merely safeguard their political freedom in
solemn terms, it will not affect their lives
materially unless it guarantees them economic and
social justice. New Kashmir contains a statement of
the objectives of bur social policy. It gives broadly
a picture of the kind of life that we hope to make
possible for the people of Jammu & Kashmir and the
manner in which the economic organization of the
country will be geared to that purpose. These ideals
you will have to integrate with the political
structure which you will devise.
The future political set-up which you decide upon
for Jammu & Kashmir must also take into
consideration the existence of various sub-national
groups in our State. Although culturally diverse
history has forged an uncommon unity between them;
they all are pulsating with the same hopes and
aspirations, sharing in each others joys and sorrows .
While guaranteeing this basic unity of the State, our
constitution must not permit the concentration of
power and privilege in the hands of any particular
group or territorial region. It must afford the
fullest possibilities to each of these groups to grow
and flourish in conformity with their cultural
characteristics without detriment to the integral
unity of the State or the requirements of our social
and economic policies.
Now let us take up an issue of basic importance
which involves the fundamental character of the State
itself. As an instrument of the will of a
self-determining people who now become sovereign in
their own right, the Constituent Assembly will now
re-examine and decide upon the future of the present
ruling dynasty, in respect of its authority.
-----------------------------
It is clear that this dynasty can no longer
exercise authority on the basis of an old discredited
Treaty. During my trial for sedition in the "Quit
Kashmir'' movement, I had clarified the attitude of my
party when I said:
- "The future constitutional set-up in the
State of Jammu & Kashmir cannot derive
authority from the old source of relationship
which was expiring and was bound to end soon. The
set-up could only rest on the active will of the
people of the State, conferring on the head of the
State the title and authority drawn from the true
and abiding source of sovereignty, that is the
people."
On this occasion, in 1946, I had also indicated the
basis on which an individual could be entrusted by the
people with the symbolic authority of a Constitutional
Head:
- "The State and its Head represent the
constitutional circumference and the center of
this sovereignty respectively, the Head of the
State being the symbol of the authority with which
the people may invest him for the realization of
their aspirations and the maintenance of their
rights".
In consonance with these principles, and in supreme
fulfillment of the people's aspirations, it follows
that a Constitutional Head of the State will have to
be chosen to exercise the function which this Assembly
may chose to entrust to him.
So far as my Party is concerned, we are convinced
that the institution of monarchy is incompatible with
the spirit and needs of modern times which demand an
egalitarian relationship between one citizen and
another. The supreme test of a democracy is the
measure of equality of opportunity that it affords to
its citizens to rise to the highest point of authority
and position. In consequence monarchies are fast
disappearing from the world picture, as something in
the nature of feudal anachronisms. In India, too,
where before the partition, six hundred and odd
Princes exercised rights and privileges of rulership,
the process of democratization has been taken up and
at present hardly ten of them exercise the limited
authority of constitutional heads of States.
After the attainment of complete power by the
people, it would have been an appropriate gesture of
good will to recognize Maharaja Hari Singh as the
first constitutional Head of the State. But I must say
with regret that he has completely forfeited the
confidence of every section of the people. His in
capacity to adjust himself to changed conditions and
his antiquated views on vital problems constitute
positive disqualifications for him to hold the high
office of a democratic Head of the State. Moreover,
his past actions as a ruler have proved that he is not
capable of conducting himself with dignity,
responsibility and impartiality. The people still
remember with pain and regret his failure to stand by
them in times of crisis, and his incapacity to afford
protection to a section of his people in Jammu.
---------------------------
Finally we come to the issue which has made Kashmir
an object of world interest, and has brought her
before the forum of the United Nations. This simple
issue has become so involved that people have begun to
ask themselves after three and a half years of tense
expectancy. "Is there any solution ?" Our
answer is in the affirmative. Everything hinges round
the genuineness of the will to find a solution. If we
face the issue straight, the solution is simple.
The problem may be posed in this way. Firstly, was
Pakistan's action in invading Kashmir in 1947 morally
and legally correct, judged by any norm of
international behavior ? Sir Owen Dixon's verdict on
this issue is perfectly plain. In unambiguous terms he
declared Pakistan an aggressor. Secondly, was the
Maharajah's accession to India legally valid or not ?
The legality of the accession has not been seriously
questioned by any responsible or independent person or
authority.
These two answers are obviously correct. Then where
is the justification of treating India and Pakistan at
par in matters pertaining to Kashmir ? In fact, the
force of logic dictates the conclusion that the
aggressor should withdraw his armed forces, and the
United Nations should see that Pakistan gets out of
the State.
In that event, India herself, anxious to give the
people of the State a chance to express their will
freely, would willingly cooperate with any sound plan
of demilitarization. They would withdraw their forces,
only garrisoning enough posts to ensure against any
repetition of that earlier treacherous attack from
Pakistan.
These two steps would have gone a long way to bring
about a new atmosphere in the State. The
rehabilitation of displaced people, and the
restoration of stable civic conditions would have
allowed people to express their will and take the
ultimate decision.
We as a Government are keen to let our people
decide the future of our land in accordance with their
own wishes. If these three preliminary processes were
accomplished, we should be happy to have the
assistance of international observes to ensure fair
play and the requisite conditions for a free choice by
the people.
Instead invader and defender have been put on the
same plane. Under various garbs, attempts have been
made to sidetrack the main issue. Sometimes against
all our ideals of life and way of living attempts
divide our territories have been made in the form of
separation of our state religion-wise, with ultimate
plans of further disrupting territorial integrity.
Once an offer was made to police our country with
Commonwealth forces, which threatens to bring in
Imperial control by the back door. Besides the
repugnance which our people have however, to the idea
of bringing foreign troops on their soil, the very
presence of Commonwealth troops could have created
suspicions among our neighbors that we were allowing
ourselves to be used as a base of possible future
aggression against them. This could easily have made
us into a second Korea.
The Cabinet Mission Plan has provided for three
courses which may be followed by the Indian States
when determining future affiliations. A State can
either accede to India or accede to Pakistan, but
failing to do either, it still can claim the right to
remain independent. These three alternatives are
naturally open to our State. While the intention of
the British Government was to secure The privileges of
the Princes, the representatives of the people must
have the primary consideration of promoting the
greatest good of the common people. Whatever steps
they take must contribute to the growth of a
democratic social order wherein all invidious
distinctions between groups and creeds are absent.
Judged by this supreme considerations, what are the
advantages and disadvantages of our State's accession
to either India or Pakistan or of having and
independent Status.
As a realist I am conscious that nothing is all
black or all white, and there are many facts to each
of the propositions before us. I shall first speak on
the merits and demerits of the State's accession to
India. In the final analysis, as I understand it, it
is the kinship of ideals which determines the strength
of ties between two States. The Indian National
Congress has consistently supported the cause of the
State's peoples' freedom. The autocratic rule of the
Princes has been done away with and representative
government have been entrusted with the
administration. Steps towards democratization have
been taken and these have raised the people's standard
of living, brought about much-needed social
reconstruction, and above all built up their very
independence of spirit. Naturally, if we accede to
India there is no danger of a revival of feudalism and
autocracy. Moreover, during the last four years the
Government of India has never tried to interfere in
our internal autonomy this experience has strengthened
our confidence in them as a democratic State.
The real character of a State is revealed in its
Constitution. The Indian Constitution has set before
the country the goal of secular democracy based upon
justice, freedom and equality for all without
distinction. This is the bedrock of modern democracy.
This should meet the argument that the Muslims of
Kashmir cannot have security in India, where the large
majority of the population are Hindus. Any unnatural
cleavage between religious groups is the legacy of
Imperialism, and no modern State can afford to
encourage artificial division if it is to achieve
progress and prosperity. The Indian Constitution has
amply and finally repudiated the concept of a
religious State, which is a throw back to medievalism,
by guaranteeing the equality of rights of all citizens
irrespective of their religion, color caste and class.
The national movement in our State naturally
gravitates towards these principles of secular
democracy. The people here will never accept a
principle which seeks to favor the interests of one
religion or social group against another. This
affinity in political principles, as well as in past
association, and our common path of suffering in the
cause of freedom, must be weighed properly while
deciding the future of the State.
We are also intimately concerned with the economic
well-being of the people of this State. As I said
before while referring to constitution-building,
political ideals are often meaningless unless linked
with economic plans. As a State, we are concerned
mainly with agriculture and trade. As you know, and I
have detailed before, we have been able to put through
our "land to the tiller" legislation and
make of it a practical success. Land and all it means
is an inestimable blessing to our peasants who have
dragged along in servitude to the landlord and his
allies for centuries without number. We have been able
under present conditions to carry these reforms
through, are we sure that in alliance with
landlord-ridden Pakistan, with so many feudal
privileges intact, that the economic reforms of ours
will be tolerated. We have already heard that news of
our Land Reforms has traveled to the peasants of the
enemy-occupied area of our State, who vainly desire
like status, and like benefits. In the second place,
our economic welfare is bound up with our arts and
crafts. The traditional markets for these precious
goods for which we are justly known all over the
world, have been centered in India. The volume of our
trade, in spite of the dislocation of the last few
years, shows this. Industry is also highly important
to us. Potentially we are rich in minerals, and in the
raw materials of industry; we need help to develop our
resources. India, being more highly industrialized
than Pakistan, can give us equipment, technical
services and materials. She can help us too in
marketing. Many goods also which it would not be
practical for us to produce here for instance sugar,
cotton, cloth, and other essential commodities, can be
got by us in large quantities from India. It is around
the efficient supply of such basic necessities that
the standard of the man in-the-street depends.
I shall refer now to the alleged disadvantages of
accession to India.
To begin with, although the land frontiers of India
and Kashmir are contiguous, an all-weather road-link
as dependable as the one we have with Pakistan does
not exist. This must necessarily hamper trade and
commerce to some extent particularly during the snowy
winter months. But we have studied this question, and,
with improvements in modern engineering, if the State
wishes to remain with India the establishment of an
all-weather stable system of communication is both
feasible and easy. Similarly, the use of the State
rivers as a means of timber transport is impossible if
we turn to India, except in Jammu where the river
Chenab still carries logs to the plains. In reply to
this argument, it may be pointed out that accession to
India will open up possibilities of utilizing our
forest wealth for industrial purposes and that,
instead of lumber, finished goods, which will provide
work for our carpenters and laborers, can be exported
to India where there is a ready market for them.
Indeed in the presence of our fleets of timber
carrying trucks, river-transport is a crude system
which inflicts a loss of some 20% to 35%, in transit.
Still another factor has to be taken into
consideration. Certain tendencies have been asserting
themselves in India which may in the future convert it
into a religious State wherein the interests of
Muslims will be jeopardized. This would happen if a
communal organization had a dominant hand in the
Government, and Congress ideals of the equality of all
communities were made to give way to religious
intolerance. The continued accession of Kashmir to
India should, however, help in defeating this
tendency. From my experience of the last four years,
it is my considered judgment that the presence of
Kashmir in the Union of India has been the major
factor in establishing relations between the Hindus
and Muslims of India. Gandhiji was not wrong when he
uttered words before his death which paraphrase,
"I lift up mine eyes into the hills, from whence
cometh my help."
As I have said before, we must consider the
question of accession with all open mind, and not let
our personal prejudices stand in the way of a balanced
judgment. I will now invite you to evaluate the
alternative of accession to Pakistan.
The most powerful argument which can be advanced in
her favor is that Pakistan is a Muslim State, and, big
majority of our people being Muslims the State must
accede to Pakistan. This claim of being a Muslim State
is of course only a camouflage. It is a screen to dupe
the common man, so that he may not see clearly that
Pakistan is a feudal State in which a clique is trying
by these methods to maintain itself in power. In
addition to this, the appeal to religion constitutes a
sentimental and a wrong approach to the question.
Sentiment has its own place in life but often it leads
to irrational action. Some argue, as supposedly
natural corollary to this, that on our acceding to
Pakistan our annihilation or survival depends. Facts
have disproved this, right-thinking men would point
out that Pakistan is not an organic unity of all the
Muslims in this sub- continent. It has on the
contrary, caused the dispersion of the Indian Muslims
for whose benefit it was claimed to have been created.
There are two Pakistans at least a thousand miles
apart from each other. The total population of Western
Pakistan which is contiguous to our State, is hardly
15 million. While the total number of Muslims,
resident in India is as many as 40 million. As one
Muslim is as good as another, the Kashmiri Muslims if
they are worried by such considerations should choose
the forty millions living in India.
Looking at the matter too from a more modern
political angle religious affinities alone do not and
should not normally determine the political alliance
of States. We do not find a Christian bloc, a Buddhist
bloc, or even a Muslim bloc, about which there is so
much talk nowadays in Pakistan. These days economic
interests and a community of political ideals more
appropriately influence the policies of States.
We have another important factor to consider, if
the State decides to make this the predominant
consideration. What will be the fate of the one
million non-Muslims now in our State ? As things stand
at present, there is no place for them in Pakistan.
Any solution which will result in the displacement or
the total subjugation of such a large number of people
will not be just or fair, and it is the responsibility
of this House to ensure that the decision that it
takes on accession does not militate against the
interests of any religious group.
As regards the economic advantages. I have
mentioned before the road and river links with
Pakistan. In the last analysis, we must however
remember that we are not concerned only with the
movement of people but also with the movement of goods
and the linking up of markets. In Pakistan there is a
chronic dearth of markets for our products. Neither,
for that matter, can she help us with our
industrialization, being herself industrially
backward.
On the debit side we have to take into account the
reactionary character of her politics and State
policies. In Pakistan we should remember that the lot
of the States' subjects has not changed and they are
still helpless and under the heel of their Rulers, who
wield the same unbridled power under which we used to
suffer here. This clearly runs counter to our own
aspirations for freedom.
Another big obstacle to a dispassionate evaluation
of her policies is the lack of a constitution in
Pakistan. As it stands at present, this State enjoys
the unique position of being governed by a
Constitution enacted by an outside Parliament which
gives no idea whatsoever of the future shape of civic
and social relations. It is reasonable to argue that
Pakistan cannot have the confidence of a
freedom-loving and democratic people when it has
failed to guarantee even fundamental rights of its
citizens. The right of self-determination for
nationalities is being consistently denied and those
who fought against Imperialism for this just right are
being suppressed with force. We should remember
Badshah Khan and his comrades who laid down their all
for freedom, also Khan Abdus Samad Khan and other
fighters, in Baluchistan. Our national movement in the
State considers this right of self-determination
inalienable, and no advantage, however great, will
persuade our people to forego it.
The third course open to us has still to be
discussed. We have to consider the alternative of
making ourselves an Eastern Switzerland, of keeping
aloof from both States but having friendly relations
with them. This might seem attractive in that it would
appear to pave the way out of the present deadlock. To
us as a tourist country it could also have certain
obvious advantages, but in considering independence we
must not ignore practical considerations. Firstly, it
is not easy to protect sovereignty and independence in
a small country which has not sufficient strength to
defend itself on our long and difficult frontiers
bordering so many countries. Secondly we must have the
goodwill of all our neighbors. Can we find powerful
guarantors among them to pull together always in
assuring us freedom from aggression? I would like to
remind you that from August 15 to October 22, 1947 our
State was independent and the result was that our
weakness was exploited by the neighbor with invasion.
What is the guarantee that in future too we may not be
victims of a singular aggression.
I have now put the pros and cons of the three
alternatives before you. It should not be difficult
for men of discrimination and patriotism gathered in
this Assembly to weigh all these in the scales of our
national good and pronounce the well being of the
country lies in the future.
|