Chapter 4: The Constituent Assembly

The National Conference convened a meeting of its General Council on 27 October 1950. The Council was called into session to consider the report of Sir Owen Dixon, the United Nations mediator, appointed to negotiate a settlement on the demilitarization of the State and the induction of the plebiscite administrator into his office. The General Council condemned the Dixon report and characterized it opposed to the objectives for which the people of the State had reposed their faith in the United Nations. The General Council observed that the "Dixon report, while admitting that the armed intervention of Pakistan constitutes a flagrant breach of international law, accords recognition to the aggressor, firstly, as an equal party and then bestows upon him title to possess the fruits of aggression". The Council voiced its strong disapproval of the suggestions made by Sir Dixon to partition the State and declared that the " territorial integrity of the State must remain inviolate and that, in determining their future the unity and the organic homogeneity of the people should not be broken into artificial compartments." By another resolution, the General Council issued a mandate to the "Supreme National Executive", to convene a Constituent Assembly in the State, based upon adult franchise and embracing all constituents of the State to determine the future shape and affiliations of the Jammu and Kashmir State. The resolution stipulated:

The meeting of the General Council of the All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference views with great concern the wrongs of aggression of which the people of the State continue to be victims. The failure in its opinion is due to the Continued concessions given to Pakistan by placing a premium on her in transience.

The indecision and unrealistic procedure adopted so far has condemned the people of the State to a life of agonizing uncertainty. The All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference is gravely concerned and cannot any longer afford to ignore the perpetration of these conditions of doubt and frustration. In the opinion of the General Council, time has come when the initiative must be regained by the people to put an end to this indeterminate state of drift and indecision. The General Council recommends to the Supreme National Executive of the people to take immediate steps for convening a Constituent Assembly based upon adult suffrage and embracing all sections of people and all the constituents of the State for the purpose of determining the future shape and affiliations of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In this sovereign Assembly embodying the supreme will of the people of the State, we shall give ourselves and our children a constitution worthy of the tradition of our freedom struggle and in accordance with the principles of New Kashmir.

The resolution of the General Council was apparently aimed to extend support to the Government of India which had rejected the proposals, made by Owen Dixon, the United Nations mediator. However, the Conference leaders were motivated by their own interests to seek the convocation of the Constituent Assembly and vest it with powers to determine the final disposition of the State. The Conference leaders did not favor a plebiscite, for they realized far two well that a vote for Pakistan would spell their doom and if the plebiscite fumed in favor of India, their endeavors to organize the State into a separate political identity based on the Muslim majority character of its population would fat! through. Evidently, they aimed to use the Constituent Assembly to extricate themselves from their commitments to a plebiscite and at the same time secure extra-constitutional guarantees for the separate political identity they envisaged for the State. The Conference leaders did not hide their intentions. In its resolution the General Council of the Conference, suddenly proclaimed the Interim Government as the "Supreme National Executive" of the people, calling upon it to convene the Constituent Assembly and end the uncertainty of the State. The Conference leaders sought to liberate the Interim Government of its provisional moorings and establish its pre-eminence over all other political instruments in the State, including those embodied by the Constitution Act of 1939, which governed its function. The Conference leaders sought to vest in the Constituent Assembly, powers which the Constitution of India did not envisage for it and thus impart to it, precedence over the constitutional instruments devised by Article 370 of the Constitution of India. They also attempted to place themselves in between India and Pakistan, in their dispute over the accession of the State and secure the Interim Government a vote on any settlement which the Government of India reached with the Security Council or the Government of Pakistan.

The resolution of the National Conference to Convene the Constituent Assembly was not opposed by the Indian leaders; perhaps they sought to use it to controvert the various pressures which were building upon the Government of India in the Security Council after it had turned down the proposals made by Owen Dixon. However, the inspiration to convene the Constituent Assembly did not come from them. In fact, the resolution caused a lot of concern to the Indian leaders, who lost no time to seek a number of clarifications from the Conference leaders with regard to the exact powers the Conference leaders intended to vest in the Constituent Assembly. The decision to vest powers to determine the future disposition of the State in the Constituent Assembly was formidable and was bound to cast its shadows on the accession of the State to India, which the Indian leaders consistently claimed, had been finally accomplished by the execution of the Instrument of Accession. The Government of India had strongly resisted all attempts to question the accession of the State to India and open fresh options for the future disposition of the State except that the act of the accession was subject to a referendum by which, India was committed to ascertain the wishes of the people of the State after the invasion was ended. This was precisely the ground on which the various Proposals made by Owen Dixon had been rejected by the Government of India.

A long correspondence ensued between the States' Ministry and the Interim Government. The Conference leaders informed the Minister of States, Gopalaswami Ayangar, that the Constituent Assembly would function as a sovereign body, and besides taking a decision on the final disposition of the State, determine the future of the Dogra rule and draw up a constitution for the government of the State. The States' Ministry accepted that the Constituent Assembly would be free to draw up a Constitution for the State, but the decisions taken by the Constituent Assembly would be subject to the accession of the State to India and the commitments which the Government of India had given in this regard. Ayangar conveyed to the Conference leaders that since the Constituent Assembly of the State would draw up the Constitution of the State, it would be necessary to bring about a measure of uniformity in the constitutional provisions which governed the relations between the Union and the State, with the provisions of the Constitution of India which governed the relations between the Union and the other Indian States and the function of their governments. The States' Minister proposed the application of the Constitution of India to the State in regard to citizenship, fundamental rights and related legal guarantees, the principles of state policy, the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary and the powers of the Union Government to deal with emergencies arising out of war and internal disturbance.

The Conference leaders did not approve of the communication of the States Minister. They insisted upon the right of the Constituent Assembly of the State to take whatever decision it deemed appropriate, on the final disposition of the State and claimed that both the accession as well as the commitments the Government of India had undertaken, were ultimately subject to the verdict of the people of the State. The Conference leaders reiterated their earlier stand that the Constituent Assembly would draw up a constitution for the government of the State, and incorporate in it the constitutional provision for citizenship, fundamental rights and the related constitutional guarantees, directive principles of state policy and emergencies arising out of threat of war and internal disturbance. The Conference leaders emphasised that the Constituent Assembly of the State alone was empowered to determine, the final disposition of the State. Ayangar was thrown off his feet and he along with Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and Rajgopalachari hurried to assure the Conference leaders that they had no disagreement with the views, the Conference leaders held. Nehru, was in London where he had gone to attend the conference of the Commonwealth Premiers. He also wrote to Sheikh Mohamad Abdullah and assured him that he did not dispute the right of the people to determine the future shape of the State and its government. "I have no doubt that the will of Kashmiri people must prevail in regard to every maker and it is they who will decide ultimately every question affecting the State."

The resolution of the National Conference evoked a sharp reaction from the Hindu and the other minorities in the State. In the Kashmir province, where the Hindus and the other minorities, did not possess much numerical strength, the reaction was subdued. But in the Jammu province, the Hindus and other minorities voiced strong disapproval of the Conference resolution to seek a vote from the Constituent Assembly on the accession of the State. The Praja Parishad and the Hindu Sahayak Sabha condemned the resolution as destructive of the accession of the State to India The Parishad adopted a strongly worded resolution that the accession of the State to India had been finally and irrevocably accomplished and the convocation of the Constituent Assembly would tantamount to its repudiation. The Praja Parishad alleged that the convocation of the Constituent Assembly in the State, to take a fresh decision on accession, was another step towards the independence of the State. Both He Parishad and the Sahayak Sabha rejected the independence of the State and claimed that they would not permit the dissolution of the accession of the State and its separation from India.

On 30 April 1951, Karan Singh, the Regent of the State, issued a proclamation to order the institution of the Constituent Assembly in the State. The proclamation envisaged the convocation of the Assembly on the basis of universal adult franchise and the secrecy of the ballot. The proclamation of the Regent ordered the State to be divided into electoral districts, for the purposes of election to the Constituent Assembly. The proclamation envisaged the appointment of a Delimitation Committee, which would be vested with the powers to delimit the territorial extent of the electoral districts.

The Constituent Assembly was empowered to make its own rules to govern its procedure and the conduct of its business.

The Delimitation Committee was constituted of five members: a judge of the High Court, Justice M.A. Shahmiri who was also appointed the Chairman of the Committee and four other members of the rank of the Deputy Commissioners of the Revenue Department of the State Government The Praja Parishad demanded representation in the Delimitation Commission, but the demand was not conceded.

For the purpose of delimiting the electoral constituencies, the mitation Committee was instructed to take a population of forty thousand people, as nearly as possible, living in a compact contiguous area with regard to the physical features of the area and its means of communication. The Kashmiri Pursharthi Sabha, which represented the refugees from the occupied territories of the State, demanded the reservation of three seats in the Constituent Assembly for the refugees encamped in Nagrota refugee camp in Jammu. The Sikhs also demanded enhancement of representation in the Constituent Assembly over that, they had in the old State assembly, the Praja Sabha.

The Delimitation Committee took instructions from the Conference leaders. Shahmiri had served the Maharaja more faithfully than many of his officers, but he had shifted his loyalties to the Interim Government, after the change over in the government in 1947. He was appointed the Constitutional Advisor to the Interim Government and was one of the collaborators of the Conference leaders who favored a separate political identity of the State on the basis of its Muslim majority character.

The total number of the members of the Assembly was fixed at one hundred; twenty-five of whom were to represent the people in the occupied territories of the State. The Kashmir province was divided into forty three constituencies, the Jammu province into thirty constituencies and the frontier divisions of Ladakh and Baltistan into two constituencies. No delimitation of electoral constituencies was made in regard to the territories of the State occupied by Pakistan. The Delimitation Committee rejected the demand of the Pursharthi Sabha seeking representation for the displaced persons from the territories of the State under the occupation of Pakistan encamped in various refugee camps in Jammu. The Committee also rejected the representation made by the Sikhs for special weightage in the Assembly.

All State-subjects, who were of twenty one years and more in age and who were not subject to any disqualifications laid down by law, and who were entitled to vote were registered in the electoral rolls of the electoral area provided they resided in the area for not less than one week during the two years preceding 1951. Voters could register themselves in any number of constituencies but they could vote in only one electoral constituency. In case a voter cast his vote in more than one constituency. his votes cast in such constituencies were liable to be declared void.

The preparation of the provisional electoral rolls was commenced on 1 December 1950, end the electoral rolls were published on 4 June 1951. The preparation of the electoral rolls was entrusted to electoral Registrars. Forty-one Revising Registrars were also appointed to hear and decide claims in regard to the registration of the voters.

The rules framed for the election to the Constituent Assembly, provided that a candidate could seek election to the Assembly if he was a first class hereditary State-subject and was of twenty-five years or more in age on 1, August 1951. Candidates could not hold any of lice of profit in the Jammu and Kashmir Government and the Government of India or any local body in the State, except in a cooperative society. People convicted of criminal offences involving a punishment of two years or more and people who had been dismissed from the Government service for corruption were barred from voting unless in both cases, a period of three years or such period as was allowed by the Commissioners had elapsed, since their release or dismissal respectively.

All the Electoral Registrars were appointed from among the Special Tehsildars, who were appointed by the State Government to implement the land reforms. Forty one revising authorities, twenty for the Jammu province, nineteen for the Kashmir province and two for the district of Ladakhs and Baltistan were appointed to receive and decide claims and objections with regard to the provisional rolls of the Constituent Assembly. All the Electoral Registrars and Revising Registrars were the nominees of the National Conference.

In accordance with the election rules, no independent tribunals were provided to settle the disputes arising out of the elections; instead, all such disputes Me to be decided by the Constituent Assembly itself. The rules envisaged warning to the officers of the government against any infringement of the election rules or any interference in the elections. Restrictions were placed on parties and candidates to use communal issues in the elections and incitement of communal feelings and violence were declared punishable offenses. The maximum expenditure a candidate was permitted to incur in the elections, was fixed at three thousand rupees. The election rules envisaged provisions in accordance with which separate polling booths were to be provided for the women voters.

Right from the time, the preparations for the elections to the Constituent Assembly began, the parties and candidates, seeking election to the Assembly in opposition to the official candidates of the National Conference, complained of intimidation and interference. They charged the National Conference of using force and pressure to drive them out of the elections and preventing them from filing their nomination papers. The allegations were largely true and the National Conference cadres, backed up by the State administration, spared no efforts, to scuttle the opposition and push out its candidates from the elections and thus pave the way for a total victory for the National Conference. For the forty-one of the forty-three constituencies in the Kashmir Province, not a single nomination paper was filed by the candidates in the opposition. In the two, remaining constituencies of Habbakadal in the city of Srinagar and of Baramulla Township, nomination papers were filed by Pandit Shiv Narayan Fotedar and Sardar Sant Singh Tegh, an Akali Sikhs leader of the State. However, the two leaders did not remain in the fray for long and both withdrew in protest. Sant Singh Tegh complained of official interference in the elections and alleged that the color of his ballot boxes, was changed in his absence and his voters were prevented from attending his election meetings by unfair and foul means.

In the Jammu province, Praja Parishad nominated candidates for twenty-seven constituencies of the provinces, generally filing nomination papers of more than one candidate for each constituency. Forty-one of the forty-six nominations filed by the Parishad were rejected in twenty-seven constituencies, leaving the Parishad to contest elections in only three constituencies in the province. On 22 September 1951, the Working Committee of the Parishad adopted a resolution condemning the rejection of the nomination papers of the Parishad candidates and gave an ultimatum to the Government to reverse the rejections, failing which the Parishad threatened to boycott the elections. The President of the Praja Parishad Pandit Prem Nath Dogra issued a press statement in Delhi on 6 October 1951 in which he alleged, that:

• The elections in the two provinces of Jammu and Kashmir were scheduled to be held on different dates to provide the National Conference an advantage over the other parties;
• The delimitation of the constituencies was undertaken in a manner, which used gerrymandering to turn many Hindu majority constituencies into Muslim majority constituencies;
• Fortune of the forty-six nomination papers filed by the Praja Parishad candidates were rejected on false and flimsy grounds;
• Official interference in the elections was widespread and the entire official machinery was geared to help the National Conference.

• To institute an independent judicial enquiry into the rejection of the nomination papers of the Praja Parishad candidates in the twenty-seven constituencies in which the Praja Parishad candidates had filed their nominations;
• To appoint a Supreme Court Judge to supervise the conduct of the elections in Jammu in order to assure perfect impartiality;
• To prevent the Government of finials from openly working for the National Conference candidates;

however, defeated and the Conference nominees returned from both the constituencies. With seventy-three of the Conference nominees having been returned unopposed the victory of its candidates in Akhnoor and Kahnachark, secured the Conference all the seventy five seats in the Assembly.

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 1719: "The source of all sovereignty resides fundamentally is the nation; sovereignty is one and indivisible and imprescriptibly. 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 nationalimportance, which we shall be called upon to take. Upon the correctness of our decision depends not only the happiness of our land and people now, but the fate as well of generations to come.

Sheikh Mohamad Abdullah enumerated the basic tasks, which the Constituent Assembly would be called upon to undertake. The foremost of the responsibilities which he claimed, fell upon the Constituent Assembly, was to frame a constitution for the government of the State

Sheikh Mohamad Abdullah said:

One great task before this Assembly will be to devise a Constitutionfor 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.

Referring to these broad aspects of the Constitution, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah observed:

To take our first task, that of constitution making, we shall naturally be guided by the highest principles of democraticconstitutions of the world. We shall base our work on theprinciple, 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 thecornerstone of our political structure. Equality before the law and the independence of judiciary from the influence of the executiveare 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 would also be features of ourconstitution. I need not refer in great detail to all those rights andobligations, already embodied in New Kashmir, which areintegral parts of democracy which has been defined as "an apparatus of social organization wherein people govern throughtheir chosen representatives and are themselves guaranteed political and civil liberties."

Referring toddle placement of the State in the Indian federal organization and the relations between the State and the Union, he said:

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 whose people and Government is available to us in unstinted and abundant measure. The Constitution of India has provided for a federal Union add in the distribution of sovereignpowers 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.

The second important issue, which Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah called upon the Constituent Assembly to deliberate upon was the future of the Dogra rule. Abdullah pointed out that the National Conference believed that the "institution of monarchy was incompatible with the spins and needs of modern times which demand an egalitarian relationship between one citizen and another." He said:

The supreme task 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 fastdisappearing 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 ruler ship, the process of democratization has been taken up and atpresent hardly ten of them exercise the limited authority of constitutional heads of the States.

Another issue which Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah said, the Constituent Assembly would have to decide, was the nature of compensation which would be paid to the landowners whose estates had been resumed under the "land to the tiller," policy of the Interim Government. He told the Assembly:

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 to the dark homes of the peasantry; 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; there presentatives of the nation are truly the best jury for giving a just and final verdict on such claims.

The most important issue, which Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah pointed out, the Constituent Assembly of the State would have to settle, was, that pertaining to the accession of the State. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah told the Assembly that the Cabinet Mission had left three options open for the States: accession to India, accession to Pakistan and the assumption of independence. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah Said:

The Cabinet Mission Plan has provided for three courses, which may be followed by the Indian States when determining their 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 consideration, what are the advantages and disadvantages of our States' accession to either India or Pakistan or of having independent status?

Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah dwelt in detail on the advantages and disadvantages, the three alternatives had, and called upon the Constituent Assembly to take a decision which would be for the good of the State. "As a realist" Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah said, "I am conscious that nothing is all black or all white, and there are many facets to each of the propositions before us." Enumerating the "merits and demerits of the States accession to India", Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah told the Assembly that it was the "kinship of ideals which determined that strength of ties between two states": He said that the Indian National Congress had consistently supported the cause of "States People freedom", and the Indian Constitution idealized the objectives of secular democracy based upon justice, freedom and equality which provided the Muslims of the State the guarantee of their security in future." The national movement in our State naturally gravitates towards these principles of secular democracy". Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah pointer out further that the Interim Government had undertaken land reform' which would not have been possible in the "Landlord-ridden Pakistan' and the economic prospects of the State were closely bound with India "Potentially ", he told the Assembly, " 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." Listing the merits of accession to Pakistan, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah told the Assembly, that more dependable roads and waterways of the State led to Pakistan not India which would hamper trade and commerce of the State. He also expressed his fears that communalism posed a threat to the Muslims in India and if India turned into a religious state in future, the interests of the Muslims would be jeopardized. "Certain tendencies have been asserting themselves in India" Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah told the Assembly, "which may in future convert it into a religious state wherein the interests of the Muslims will be jeopardized. "This would happen," he added, "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" He pointed out further that Pakistan was a Muslim state and a large majority of the people of the State were Muslims. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah ruled out accession to Pakistan on the ground that Pakistan was a feudal state, economically backward and politically retrograde and oppressive. Besides the accession of the State to Pakistan would affect the future of one million non-Muslims of the State as there was no place for them in Pakistan. "Any solution " he told the Assembly, "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."

Examining the alternative of independence of the State, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah made certain interesting observations. He said:

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 whom we had a valid Stand-still Agreement. The State was invaded. Where is the guarantee that in future too we may not be victims of a similar aggression?

The inaugural address delivered by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah brought to surface the divergently different views the Conference leaders harbored about the accession of the State and the constitutional relations between the State and the Indian Dominion. The Government of India had offered to hold a referendum in the State to ascertain the wishes of the people of the State in regard to accession, but it had consistently refused to accept operatives for such a referendum, which repudiated the accession of the State to India. The investiture of any authority in the Constituent Assembly of the State, which was independent of the Constitution of India, virtually repudiated the accession of the State to India and conflicted with the stand, India had taken in the Security Council.

The Conference leaders read the events, which had led to the partition of India in their own way. The Cabinet Mission did not propose the division of India and the creation of two dominions: India and Pakistan; nor did it visualize any alternatives to the accession of the States, which recognized their independence. The Cabinet Mission plan envisaged a United India, of which the Indian States formed an integral part.

The partition of India, envisaged by the Mount batten Declaration of June 3, 1946, did not envisage independence of the Indian States. The partition plan, later embodied in the Indian Independence Act, provided for the withdrawal of the British Paramountcy. The dissolution of the Paramountcy liberated the Indian States from the protection of the British Crown, but it did not vest them with any more powers than the exercised under the Paramountcy.

The Jammu and Kashmir States acceded to India in accordance with the processes underlined by the partition. Maharaja Hari Singh had exhausted the alternatives available to him under the provision of the Indian Independence Act. The commitments made by the Government of India at the Security Council were not pronounced on behalf of the State of Kashmir; at least, Pakistan and the Security Council did not recognize them to be so. The attempts made by the Conference leaders to vest in the Constituent Assembly of the State, powers that did not rightfully belong to it, convicted with the claims of both India as well as Pakistan.

The problem of the Indian State was not confined to the rights and obligations of the Paramountcy alone and the alternatives, which the British sought to secure them. The future of the States was of crucial importance to the unity of India. The partition separated the Muslims from India but the partition did not envisage the division of the princely India or its separation from India The All India Congress Committee unequivocally repudiated the claim of any State to assume independence. The Committee emphasized that the relationship between the Government of India and the States would not be exhausted by the lapse of the British Paramountcy.

The Muslim League took the stand that Paramountcy reverted to the States after the transfer of power, leaving them free to take any course of action they preferred in their relations with the two dominions. However, both, the Viceroy and British Government refused to accept the position the League adopted. Mount batten gave a rebuff to the League, when he addressed the Princes on 25 July 1947, and told them plainly that they could not escape integration with the rest of India and the British Government would neither be prepared to offer aid nor accept the independence of any Stated "My scheme" Mount batten told the Princes, "leaves you with all practical independence you can possibly use and makes you free of all those subjects which you cannot possibly manage on your own. You cannot run away from the Dominion government which Is your neighbor any more than you can run away from subjects for whose welfare you are responsible."

The National Conference, virtually reiterated the demands of the Muslim League in respect of the States and sought to take the position in respect of Kashmir, which Mohammad Ali Jinnah had taken with regard to the Indian Princely States. Indeed, by virtue of the partition, the Indian States had been vested with technical independence, but they were all the same, a part of India, politically, administratively, economically and geographically Introducing the Indian Independence Bill in the House of Lords, Pathic Lawrence, the Secretary of the State for India admitted that the States were not an integral part of India but they could not afford to remain out of it. "But, apart from the political relationship between the States and British India", He told the House of Lords," there have grown up a vast number of economic and financial agreements, matters of common concern - posts and telegraphs, customs, transit, railways - and it would be disastrous to India if these arrangements were terminated on the transfer of power". The decision about the States was not, therefore, solely in the hands of the British, as perhaps the National Conference leaders visualized. The future of the States depended upon their history and their political relations with the rest of the country, which had evolved with the Paramountcy.

The Government of India too was an important factor to determine the future of the States. The rulers of the States could not visualize their future in isolation from India and that was precisely what the experience in Junagarh and Hyderabad proved. The Indian States were not subject to partition; neither the Muslim Rulers not the Muslim subjects of any Indian State were enjoined to opt for Pakistan by the partition plan or the Indian Independence Act. Princes were given the choice to join either of the two dominions without any preconditions and on the basis they chose. It was on that basis Mohammad All Jinnah offered the most favored treatment to some Rajput States in Western India if they chose to accede to Pakistan. The Conference leaders, therefore, attempted to add a fresh dimension to the accession of the Indian States. The fact that Muslims formed a majority of the population of Jammu and Kashmir, did not create any special conditions, for which they could claim the right under the partition plan or the procedures laid down by the Indian Independence Act, to accede to Pakistan or assume independence.

The more involved feature of the claims made by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was his assertion to vest the Constituent Assembly, with powers to revoke the accession of the State to India, and to accede in Pakistan or assume independence. The Conference leaders, perhaps, refused to countenance the fact that the Constituent Assembly had been instituted by an instrument created by the Constitution of India. They claimed that the Assembly was brought into being by the Interim Government, with inherent and original powers derived from the people of the State, who did not form a part of the people of India. The Conference leaders, in effect, sought to vest in the Constituent Assembly of the State, a separate charge, which was independent of the Constitution of India.

The doctrine of double charge, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah evolved, had two serious implications:

• The Constituent Assembly was independent of the Constitution of India and exercised inherent powers, which it did not derive from the Constitution of India.
• The claim that the Constituent Assembly possessed the right to determine the finality of the accession of the State virtually amounted to the repudiation of the accession of the State to India.

On 7 November 1951, the Constituent Assembly set up several committees to examine various aspects of the constitutional organization of the State and report to the Assembly. In the committees were included the Basic Principles Committee and the Drafting Committee of the Constitution of the State and the Advisory Committee on Citizenship and Fundamental Rights. Mirza Afzal Beg, who moved the resolution for the appointment of the Advisory Committee on Citizenship and Fundamental Rights, told the Assembly that the proposed Committee would report on the qualifications of the citizens of the State and the fundamental rights they would be guaranteed. Beg said that the fundamental rights incorporated in the Constitution of the State would be designed in accordance with the rights, which were incorporated in the constitutions of the democratic states.

On 15 January, the students of the Prince of Walces College in Jammu staged a demonstration protesting against the hoisting of the National Conference flag on the college building. They complained that the flag of the Conference was a party flag and therefore, it could not take the place of the national flag or the flag of the State. The demonstrations infuriated the National Conference leaders, who ordered severe punitive action against the students of the college. The students retaliated by proceeding on an indefinite hunger strike. The situation worsened and the protest demonstrations organized against the action of the government turned violent. The State Government came down upon the students with a heavy hand and the police resorted to firing at a number of places in the Jammu city. The situation deteriorated further and the army had to be called out to quell the disturbances. A seventy-two hour curfew was clamped on the Jammu city. The Interim Government blamed the Praja Parishad of having instigated the agitation. The Parishad denied having any hand in the demonstrations and demanded the institution of an independent enquiry into the causes of the disturbances. Several leaders of the Parishad, including the President of the Parishad, Pandit Prem Nath Dogra, were arrested.

While the conflagration in Jammu was still smoldering, the Head Lama of Ladakh, Kaushak Bakula, a member of the Constituent Assembly of the State presented a long memorandum to the Prime Minister of the State, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah. Kaushak Bakula demanded the inclusion of statutory provisions in the Constitution of the State by virtue of which Ladakh would become a federating unit of the State so long Jammu and Kashmir remained in India. He urged upon the Premier that a separate Legislative Assembly of fifteen members, with an executive council responsible to it, should be set up to conduct the government and administration of Ladakh. Kaushak Bakula demanded that Ladakh should bear the same relation to the State that the State bore to India. He pointed out that the Buddhists of Ladakh were different from the rest of the people of the State in race, culture, religion and language and being represented by one member in the Assembly, they had little or no voice in the shaping of their future. The Head Lama demanded that in case the proposals to reorganize Ladakh into a federating province of the State were not accepted, a statutory advisory committee of ten members should be elected on the basis of joint electorates to advise the State Government in regard to Ladakh. Kaushak Bakula emphasized that no measures should tee taken by the Constituent Assembly of the State which affected the economic, political and religious life of the people of the province without the approval of the statutory advisory committee which be had proposed for Ladakh.

The communal polarization caused the Indian leaders considerable anxiety. They realised the dangers in the alienation of the major communities in the State and the advantage Pakistan could take of any Muslim distrust, which grew in consequence. However, their efforts to deal with the crisis were feeble. They denounced the Praja Parishad agitation but did not muster courage to tell the Conference leaders that they could not carry the Hindus and the other minorities with them so long they followed the policy of communal precedence. Obviously the Hindus and the other minorities were not prepared to accept a separate political identity of the State which was placed outside the constitutional organization of India and which was based upon the communal precedence of the Muslims. They had fought for the freedom of India, shoulder to shoulder with their fellow countrymen, opposed the partition with all their might and paid for their professions more heavily than their Muslim compatriots. Many of them entertained fears that the communal precedence was bound to conflict with the secular integration of India and ultimately lead to the secession of the State from India.

On 24 March 1952, Mirza Afzal Beg, the Chairman of the Basic Principles Committee unfolded in the Constituent Assembly the scheme of autonomy, the National Conference visualized for the Jammu and Kashmir State. He said that Jammu and Kashmir would be constituted into an "autonomous republic within the Indian Union, with a separate President, National Assembly, Judiciary, Regional Autonomy and separate citizenship". Beg's exhortations draw sharper reaction from the minorities in the State, and deepened the distrust in the Jammu province further.

In April 1952, Nehru sent Gopalaswami Ayangar to Jammu to make an assessment of the situation on the spot and help in the restoration of normalcy there. In Jammu, a number of delegations met Gopalaswami. Delegations, representing Hindus and the Sikhs of both the provinces, and the Buddhists of Ladakh also met Nehru's emissary. The Hindus delegations told Gopalaswami that:

• The Hindus did not approve of the autonomous constitutional position, which the National Conference sought for the State, because such a loose relationship between the State and the Union would eventually lead to the cessation of the State from the Indian Union;
• The National Conference was working to establish dominance over the Muslim majority over the government and the politics of the States, which was bound to relegate the Hindus and the other minorities in the State, a million and quarter of people, constituting almost half of the population of the State, to a second rate citizenship and a life of servillance;
• The Interim Government had, right from its inception, vigoursly reorganized property relations in the State to ensure Muslim dominance over its economic organization;
• The Interim Government had followed a persistent policy of excluding the Hindus from the administrative organization of the States;
• The Interim Government had imposed an embargo on the admission of Hindus to educational institutions, grant of scholarships to them and their nomination to technical colleges inside and outside the State; and
• The Hindus and the other minorities favored the application of the Constitution of India to the State in its entirety.

The State Government released the Praja Parishad leaders and the Students who had been imprisoned during the agitation. The release of the leaders had a soothing effect on the ruffled tempers in the province and the student agitation subsided gradually. However, Ayangar mission administered a jolt to the Conference leaders, who had received unquestioned support from the Government of India in whatever action they had taken in the State. The Muslim leaders of the Conference expressed strong resentment against Ayangar's visit to the State and charged the Government of India of interference with the internal affairs of the State. They claimed that the people o the State, who they unmistakably identified with the Muslims, would not accept the secular integration of the State with India, which would effect the Muslim majority character of the Stated They also claimed that the Constituent Assembly of the State, was not subject to any operatives which were not devised by the Interim Government and therefore, the Assembly was free to determine the institutional basis of the future constitution of the State. Some of the Conference leaders claimed that the Muslims in the State had supported the accession of the State to India on the condition that Jammu and Kashmir would be preserved its separate political identity and the Muslim majority character of its population. Several Muslim leaders of the Conference, including Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah claimed, further, that the Muslims of the State had repudiated Pakistan, mainly because the Muslim League had refused to recognize the separate political identity of the State and opted to join India on the assurance that the State would not be integrated with the rest of India. In truth, the assertions made by the Conference leaders were untenable. The League leaders had refused to meet the Conference emissaries, which were sent by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah to negotiate reconciliation with the League shortly before the armies of Pakistan invaded the State.

In a few days after Ayangar left the State, the Conference leaders struck back. On 10 April 1952, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, addressing a public meeting at Ranbir Singh Pora, a small township in the Jammu province, situated on the borders of Pakistan, launched a scathing attack on the demand for the integration of the State into the political organization of India. He characterized the demand for the application of the Constitution of India to the State as "unrealistic, juvenile and insane" and pointed out that the people who sought the integration of the State with India and the termination of its separate political identity, "did not appreciate the realities of the situation which faced them in the State." Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah claimed that the Muslims were apprehensive of communalism, which was still rife in India. "No one can deny" he said "that communal feeling still persists in India. Many Kashmiris are apprehensive about what will happen to them and their position, if, for instance, something happens to Pandit Nehru." He said further, "If a special position was not secured for Kashmir in the Indian Constitution, how can we convince the Muslims in Kashmir that India does not interfere in the internal affairs of Kashmir?" Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah emphasized, "We have acceded to India in regard to defense, foreign affairs and communications in order to have a sort of internal autonomy."

Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah emphasized that if there was resurgence of communalism in India and if the people in the State were denied the right to shape their destiny, the accession of the State to India would end In an address to a huge congregation of Muslims at the famous Muslim shrine at Hazartbal in Srinagar he said, that the people of Kashmir were not prepared to renounce their cherished goal of freedom and the Ideology of the National Conference, the furtherance of which they had offered their blood and sweat during the last two decades. He told the congregation that Kashmir had acceded to India in respect of only defense, foreign affairs and communications and the people of the State possessed complete freedom in their internal affairs and enjoyed absolute rights to shape their own destiny in accordance with their will. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah said "Those who are raising the slogan of full application of Indian Constitution to Kashmir are weakening the accession of the State. They are the same people who massacred Muslims in Jammu. These slogans naturally cause suspicion in the minds of the Muslims of the State". Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah emphasized that he had not surrendered to the Muslim communalism of Pakistan and he would not surrender to Hindu communalism in India.

A more clear exposition of the National Conference outlook was made by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah in the Constituent Assembly on 25 April 1952. He said that the Constituent Assembly had the unfettered right to:

1. Determine the final disposition of the State in regard to accession;

2. Determine the future of the rule of the Dogra dynasty;

3. Frame the constitution of the State on all matters not transferred to the Union by virtue of the Instrument of Accession;

4. Determine the relationship between the State and the Union of India.

It is the considered view of the Committee that sovereignty does and must reside in the people and that all power and authority must flow from the expression of their free will. The State and itshead, respectively symbolize this sovereignty and its center of gravity. The Head of the State represents the authority vested inhim by the people for the maintenance of their rights. The promotion of the vital principle of constitutional progress makes it imperative that this symbol of state power should be subject to the vote of the people. The Committee therefore, strongly feels that consistent with the democratic aspirations of the people of the State the of rice of the Head of the State should be based upon the elective principle and not upon the principle of heredity. This would afford opportunities to all citizens to rise to the highest point of authority and position, with the support and confidence of the people. The spirit of equality and fraternity required by democracy, demands that in no sphere of state activity should a citizen be debarred from participating in the progress of his country and the advancement of its ideals and traditions. It is clear that the hereditary principle in the appointment to any of fire of powercurtails the peoples choice and to that extent, restricts their rightto elect a suitable person of outstanding merit and personal qualities to that position. The process of democratization will not be complete till the highest of rice of the State is thrown open to the humblest of the land and in this manner, the Head of the State will be repository of the unbound respect, confidence and esteem of the people.

The Committee concluded that there must be a sense of finality about the decision in regard to the issue of the Head of the State and accordingly recommended that the hereditary rule of the Dogras be terminated end the Head of the State be elected by the people of the State. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah told the Assembly that the hereditary rule of the Dogras was incompatible with democratic principles as well as the Aspirations of the people of the State. He told the Assembly that the National Conference had decided to replace the Ruler by a chief executive, who was elected by the people of the State. Abdullah made certain Interesting observations in the Assembly in regard to the proposals to end the Dogra rule. He said:

However, the Committee has made the recommendation for thetermination of this hereditary rule in the light of the desires of the people, who under the guidance of National Conference, havesacrificed their lives, have gone to jails and put up in narrow cellsinhabited by serpents and scorpions. Hundreds of women folkhave been dishonored, hundreds made to crawl on their bellies and thousands martyred by shedding their blood. It is the sayingof the leaders that freedom cannot be achieved by requesting butby struggle. Only that nation attains freedom, which sheds its blood for this cause. This again cannot be achieved by begging. Freedom can be obtained only when the people of JammuKashmir and Ladakh, nay of the whole State, make sacrifices in the manner in which lakhs of people like Luther have struggled for their liberation. I want to make it clear to you that this issue has not cropped up under some sentiment of vengeance or because the Raja Red at a time when catastrophe came. It is noteven because we were imprisoned and now we have gained power so we should wreak vengeance on him. I want to say to the worldthat sovereignty belongs to the people and not to an individual.

On 12 June 1952, the report of the Basic Principles Committee was unanimously adopted by the Constituent Assembly. The resolution of the Assembly stipulated that:

1. The Head of the State would be elected bit the Legislative Assembly and after having been elected recognized by the President of India;

2. The Head of the State would hold office for a period of five years;

3. The Head of the State would be designated as the Sadar-i-Riyasat;

4. The method of election, qualifications and other matters pertaining to the office of the Head of the State would be prescribed in the State Constitution;

5. The Sadar-i-Riyasat would exercise such powers as were vested in him by the State Constitution;

6. The Constituent Assembly would in due course provide a suitable remedy in respect of violation of the Constitution or gross misconduct by the person for the time being holding the of lice of Sadari-Riysat.

This Assembly resolves that the recommendations contained inthe Interim Report of the Basic Principles Committee, as adopted by the Assembly, be implemented and for this purpose theDrafting Committee be directed to place before this Assembly appropriate proposals in the form of a resolution, within a period of one month from the date of the passing of this resolution.

The Government of India did not approve of the proposal the Constituent Assembly of the State made with regard to the replacement of the Ruler of the State by a President of the State who was elected in a manner the Conference leaders prescribed. The Conference leaders were accordingly informed that changes in the constitutional organization of the State, the Conference leaders proposed, would be inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of India They were also told that any changes in the constitutional organization of the State, which the Constituent Assembly proposed, would inevitably involve the integration of the State In the constitutional structure of India, in order that the instruments treated by the Constituent Assembly did not conflict with the imperatives, the Constitution of India envisaged. Nehru stated in the Indian parliament:

Now this position might well have lasted some time longer, butfor the fact that the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir came into existence and came into existence with our goodwill and with ourconsent. Now it is sitting to draw up its constitution. When it is drawing up its constitution it has to be in some precise terms; it cannot be fluid. Therefore, the question arose that nothing shouldbe done by the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir State, which does not fit in with our Constitution, which in no sense is contrary to it or conflicts with any part of it. That is why this question now arose to consider.

A delegation of the Conference leaders was dispatched to Delhi to clarify the Conference stand on the constitutional issues, which the Government of India had raised. The delegation was headed by Mirza Afzal Beg and included Syed Mir Qasim, the Secretary of the Basic Principles Committee and M.A. Shahimiri, the Constitutional Advisor to the Constituent Assembly of the State. The delegation was later joined by the other senior leaders of the National Conference, including Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, Maulana Masoodi, Bakhshi Gulam Mohammad and Gulam Mohammad Sadiq.

The Conference leaders had many reasons to propose the removal of Maharaja Hari Singh and his Regent Yuvraj Karan Singh and provide for an executive instrument in place of the Maharaja, which was instituted by the Interim Government. Obviously, they sought to eliminate the sole factor in the Government of the State, which was still outside their reach. The Conference leaders were aware of the fact that both Hari Singh and the Government of India did not favor the reorganization of the State into a separate and independent political identity based upon the Muslim majority character of its population. They intended to install one of their ranks in place of the Maharaja, as the President of the State, and remove from the Government of the State, a vital instrument, which the Government of India could use to smother the Interim Government, in an eventuality in which the National Conference attempted to force issues on it.

By now Nehru was disillusioned about the United Nations and had abandoned his hope to get the invading armies of Pakistan evacuated from the parts of the State occupied by them. He had painfully realized that the negotiations for truce and demilitarization had ultimately led to the consolidation of the Pakistan's hold on the territories of the State which fell on the other side of he cease-fire line. He had also realized that the delicately poised balance, which formed the basis of the Indian position in the State, had been considerably debilitated by the United Nations mediation, which had been deliberately protracted by Pakistan to demolish the Indian influence in the State. Nehru was also aware of the deep distrust in the State, which the policies followed by the Conference leaders had generated and the efforts, which were being made by a section of the Conference leadership to take advantage of the political instability in the State to convert it into a second Muslim republic.

In the deliberations between the Conference leaders and the representatives of the Government of India, the Conference leaders were told by the central leaders that:

1. Any changes in the constitutional organization of the State would necessitate the integ