Early 19th and 20th century was the age when freedom struggles in Asian and African countries started against the colonial, imperial and despotic rule. These movements were by and large indigenous but most of them received encouragement and support in number of ways either by foreign governments or by various groups because of their close religious affiliation, ethnic roots or geographical proximity. Indian freedom struggle was no exception to this outside support and encouragement. Kashmir saw its first organized movement against the despotic and autocratic rule under the dynamic and bold leadership of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah. The borders of Jammu & Kashmir having close geographical, climatical, linguistic closeness with the then Western Punjab and present Pakhtoon Khah did receive sympathetic voices in Urdu press even before 1931 uprising. Politically conscious class which consisted a large number of ethnic Kashmiris settled in those areas did lend initial support and assistance to this movement. Hence you find a popular support which included financial assistance to this movement initially by Ahmadias of Punjab who organized Kashmir committees which were later on replaced by Ahrar Movement and new version of Kashmir Committee led by Allama Iqbal. As against this the large sections of the then Indian Press who were great supporters of Indian National Congress, its struggle against British imperialism and despotic rule of Indian Maharajas and Nawabs opposed Kashmir’s popular movement for obvious reasons. Nehru, obviously did not like the genuine and natural interest of ethnic Kashmiris settled in present Pakistan: desperately wanted to have this influence erased and evaporated from the Kashmir movement. Students of Kashmir history should have nothing but praise for Gandhi and Nehru’s ability to win over a mass emerging leader to their side and conveying to him that his future prospects and political ambitions and his dreams of assuming power single handedly. This formal honor and respect was conferred under Nehru’s orders to Sheikh Sahab on his pre arranged visit to Delhi just before a few days when the state was going to be engulfed in a crisis which is not over. What a master stroke by an admirer of Chanakya and Niccolò Machiavelli. Sheikh Sahib was made to believe that he was in safe hands but, all human wisdom and future planning have its limitations. For Sheikh Sahib the relationship forged and watered since 1934 reached its zenith on 26th of October 1947, this relationship however had inherent contradictions because it was against the balance of power concept, Sheikh was of the opinion that not only his political carrier would be perpetually ensured but having thrown its lot with a bigger economic power of TATAs and Birlas would lead to economic prosperity of the state as against a close neighbor who was in its infancy. He believed that instrument of accession and promises and pledges made would ensure if not forever but at least upto his death uninterrupted hold on state power with least control from Delhi. Alas there was no appreciation that this honeymoon was a temporary intoxication and bitter realities of an unnatural wedlock was bound to inflict heavy wounds on the human psyche. The students of Kashmir history are further aghast to comprehend why an inherent conflict of interest between the two parties was not comprehended. The Indian leaders be it Gandhi, Nehru and even Patel had succeeded in understanding the man from Srinagar and his psyche. Hence, they adopted a subterfuge of praising Sheikh Sahib to the hilt and “sympathizing” with the exploited and economically poor Kashmiri Muslims but at the same time observed that Kashmiri Pandits and the Hindus form a very small proportion of the population, and as they are comparatively better off, the poorer majority which is getting conscious, is trying to assert itself and the conflict of interest is creating a situation in which the minority finds itself in an unenviable position and lives in a state of perpetual insecurity and fear, resulting in demoralization. The State being a Hindu State, situated in Muslim surroundings, finds itself in a very delicate and difficult position to take strong action against revolt or lawlessness as such action at once disturbs the communal atmosphere outside.'(Sardar Patel’s Correspondance 1945-50, Volume -1, New Light on Kashmir, Edited by Durga Das). This was the political thinking not only of the extreme rightwing of the Congress but even the so called secular Congresits could not resist the temptations. Hence, could we say that it was total disregard shown by Kashmiri leadership to real politics. Did they become oblivious to the possible future contradictions which would ensue if they felt any sense of equality and their special characteristics with regard to its relationship which the most powerful state vis-à-vis a tiny state would continue forever This leadership had no understanding of the historical, physiological; sociological and emotional forces at play after the fall of a different political system in 1857. The relationship which was hailed as a meeting of minds and a best decision in the interest of the people of the state was like erecting a concrete structure on the sand dunes, which did not take even a year when cracks in the foundation started appearing. One of the important sources giving a peep into the developments which culminated on the 9th August 1953 nakedness and a rehearsal to the real designs can be found in Sardar Patel’s correspondence: ‘New Light on Kashmir’. The draft on Article 370 and realated constitutional issues were discussed and agreed upon by the Kashmir leadership with Delhi but was overnight drastically changed in October 1948 and the draft submitted before the Indian constituent assembly was resented by Sheikh Sahib in his letter dated 7th October 1948 but blunt and sharp response of Patel was a cruel exhibition of political realism
“You (Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah) seem to have misunderstood the point of my reference. My grievance was and still remains that before apprising us of your intention you sought a public forum for ventilating your so-called grievances against the Maharaja and gave expression to certain views which were to embarrass us. __________________. You seem to be in the peculiar position of having been misunderstood, apart from many others ________________ by Jawarlal, Gopalaswami and myself.”
The Sheikh was told that even Nehru had taken a serious exception to Sheikh Sahib’s press conference in Delhi attacking the Maharaja for not behaving as a constitutional head. This was the same friend of Sheikh Sahib for whom he had eloquently quoted Ameer Khusroo and showered a praise on Nehru in most reverent language. One wonders that if this famous couplet could have been recited in these days of extreme intolerance on both sides what would have been the fate of reciter. One fails to believe one’s eyes and ears that it was the same Congress leadership which had propped up the most popular party of J&K to start Quit Kashmir Movement which, among other reasons paved the way for tumultuous events of 26th October 1947. Another shock for Sheikh Sahib was in the shape of Article 306–A which was submitted to the constitution assembly in amended manner as against the agreed draft. Sheikh wanted that a rectification could be carried out in the article but Gopalaswami Aiayanger told bluntly that there was nothing to be rectified. The Kashmir leadership threatened to resign from the constituent assembly but it was met with a stern response. “The step (resignation) if taken, would produce the most unwelcome and serious repercussion in Kashmir (M. Gopalaswami’s letter, dated 18th October 1949). Events of 9th August 1953 thus to a naked eye appear to be inbuilt in the decisions taken by Kashmir leadership since early 1934.
One more trigger which started 53 was a revolutionary and laudable land reform providing land to the exploited tiller. This was one of the first land reform of its kind affecting a small section of population belonging to advanced section of society – Kashmiri Pandits, forward casts in Jammu province and elite Muslim educated class. The powers in Delhi were up in arms against the government. Though the step was laudable but Sheikh Sahib’s over enthusiastic approach and his thoughtless reliance on extreme left and denying even the minimum compensation added salt on the wounds of privileged class hastened the pace of the events of 9th August 1953. Denying even the minimum compensation was even against the basic tenants of Islam. Sheikh Abdullah’s temperamental haughtiness created number of heavy weight enemies in Delhi. Sheikh Sahib’s perceived arrogance “and indiscretion” also converted potential sympathizers into enemies.
Fate became prompt in retribution. It was national interest and unity of India which prevailed over mann too shudam too mann shudi. Reportedly not a murmur was raised against the murder of constitutional process. Even the most powerful Muslim ministers in Pandit Nehru’s cabinet were so annoyed with Sheikh Sahab that one of them was allegedly not ready to compromise with the honor of his clan.The other one having of superior intellectual arrogance could not bear with the perceived dishonor which he faced in Eidgah Srinagar on Eid occasion in June 1953.
And the other Muslim political heavyweight was brimming with anger as the reports from Srinagar suggested that his clan’s honor was wounded (detailed account can be seen in Nehru’s Emissary to Kashmir by Major General Hiralal Atal) but Ramchandra Guha (India After Gandhi), though confirming the anger of the minister gives a different reason. Sheikh Abdullah has tried to give a defensive explanation to the treatment meted out to Moulana Abdul Kalam Azad in June 1953
From the plethora of historical records available it could safely be said that Sheikh Abdullah committed a monumental blunder by measuring political relations between the most powerful party and the most weakest party in emotional and personal bonds. Had he been a student of international politics and had he studied how power politics in the relations of 2 parties were conducted, he would have known that these relations are not reflected in a hand shake. International politics has hardly recognized any personal friendships and are meeting of hearts. Had he understood the real import of British Prime Minister Palmerston’s famous quote that “Britain had no permanent friends or enemies, what was permanent was its national interest”. Personal friendship and promises in international politics are an illusion to trap gullible and pigmy minds or those politicians who have only a personal agenda. Had this cruel political reality and pragmatism dawned on the leadership of the times it could have not burst in hypocritical emotions by cruelly injuring and violating the sentiments of reverence embedded in Amir Khusroo’s memorable words Mann too shudam…..
Knowledgeable and well meaning political commentators have identified one of the reasons of Nehru’s “bold, pragmatic and ruthless action of sacking his friend from Prime-Ministership and putting him behind the bars to the leadership’s dictatorial tendencies of suppressing, disseminating and virtually annihilating all traces of political dissent. Had a strong political dissent been vibrant and active Delhi might have twice thought whether to go for this unprecedented political murder and mayhem even in Indian context. Not only was political descent met with extreme contempt in Valley but even there was hardly any sympathy for Jammu Muslims because of their different course of politics “Please see K. D. Sethi’s memoirs yaad-e-raftgaan
There are some apologists of Nehru who have painfully struggled to convince us that Nehru had no role in the dismissal and incarceration of his friend and “only ray of hope in Kashmir”. This is an attempt of image building of a “Democrat, Fabian, Socialist” and ” a great defender of right of self determination of Asian and African subjugated peoples”. They are advised to go through firsthand account of “Nehru’s Emissary to Kashmir”. The 9th August 1953 which is one of the several black days in the recent history of Kashmir was purely an army exercise (for detail account please see Nehru’s Emissary to Kashmir). As a young student I remember how this day was observed in the valley as a black day by the then plebiscite friend but was suddenly forgotten since 1975 because the political realities had changed replacing `political waywardness’ with the real politics of power.