ARTICLE 370 - ITS GENESIS AND REACTIONS IN J&K STATE

Author(s): SHAILENDER SINGH JAMWAL

Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 54 (1993), pp. 467-471
Published by: Indian History Congress
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44143001
Accessed: 28-10-2024 15:40 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Proceedings of the Indian History Congress

This content downloaded from 122.161.50.49 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 15:40:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 80

ARTICLE 370 - ITS GENESIS AND REACTIONS

IN J&K STATE

SHAILENDER SINGH JAMWAL*

1.1 The state of Jammu and Kashmir was territorially the largest princely state of India
and its rulers were enjoying near despotic powers like rulers of other princely state.
The state was geographically and culturally divided into four provinces - Jammu,
Kashmir, Ladakh and Gilgit. The first two contained over nienty per cent of the
state's population and more than two-third of this was Muslim.1

1.2 Since the state is situated in a very remote part of India and inspite of various
limitations the Maharaja had taken a few steps towards the modernization of the
state.2 The level of education and the number of experienced administrators was
low, and therefore, top officials were often imported from the Punjab and other
provinces. These officers were often more interested in accumultating wealth than
in improving the administration of the state or the let of the people.3

1.3 By the end of the World War I there were hundreds of able University graduates
among the Hindus of Kashmir and Jammu, and they naturally sought employment
opportunities in their own state. Consequently, the Dogra Sadar Sabha (a social
organisation of Jammu) and the upper class Hindus made a demand in late 1926
to discourage the entry of outsiders into state services.4 Accordingly, Maharaja Hari
singh promulated the law regarding the 'Hereditary state subject' on January 31,
1927, by which outsiders were debarred from entering the state services and holding
immovable property in the state.5 However, certain top officials on exceptional and
special basis were again appointed from time to time.6

* AM-15514, P.G. Department, of History, University of Jammu, Jammu, (J & K).

This content downloaded from 122.161.50.49 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 15:40:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Proceedings, UIC : 54th Session, 1993

4 However, the main beneficiaries of the above mentioned law were the Dogra
Brahmins, the Kashmiri Pandits and the Punjabi Khatris who had earlier settle down
in the state. Thus the emerging Muslims eilte of the state soon started demanding
a share in the top positions of the state services. They demanded that if enough
educated muslim candidates with requisite qualifications were not available from
within the state the opportunity should be made available to Muslims from other
provinces. Their demand was not acceptable to the young Maharaja because he
believed that his subjects should have a preference over the outsiders.7

II

2.1 After the independence of India the 'Instrument of Accession' with the Indian Union
was signed by Maharaja Hari Singh on October 26, 1947 and the special status
within the Indian Union was given by the Parliament by the adoption of Article 306
on October 17, 1949, 8 which was later rescheduled as 370. The enactment of Article
370 was, however, not the beginning of the special status of the state. In fact it was
the culmination a process which had begun in January 1927 and had been
influenced by the Instrument of Accession and various national and international
compulsions that arose between October 26, 1947 and October 17, 1949.9

2.2 Immediately -after the acceptance of the Instrument of Accession, the Government
of India appointed Kanwar DaJip Singh as the agent of the Government of India in
J&K. This event was the first step towards the special status of the state after
independence of India. Another fact worth noticing is that when the Constituent
Assembly of India was formed a number of states were given representation right
from the beginning and they fully participated in the framing of the Constitution of
India. But, it was only in June 1949, when the Indian Constituent Assembly was
passing through its final stages that J&K was given representation in it.

2.3 Ultimately, the Government of India on October 17, 1949, accepted special status.
(All the Princely states which joined India were given special status, later on they
surrendired it, and signed Instrument of Merger, while J&K was never asked to sign
the latter for J&K through Article 370 (at initial stage it was 306) of the Indian
Constitution.10 The grant of special status to the state has, however, remained a
most controversial and much debated issue ever since. The people of the Kashmir
Velley regard this article as an "Article of Faith" which guaranted their internal
autonomy and Kashmiri identity as well while many in Jammu regard this article
as the greatest hurdle in the way of the intergration of the state with India. It is,
therefore, very essential to examine the basis under which the special status was
accorded to the State.

ffl

3.1 First, It is tragic but true that the division of India had taken place on communal
basis and that more than two-third of the state's population was muslim with
different language, culture and indentity. The Government of India probably suspected
that these muslims with close geographic and economic contacts with Pakistan
wanted to be independent or with Pakistan. Indian leadership with their commitment
to democracy never approved that a single individual should decide the future of

468

This content downloaded from 122.161.50.49 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 15:40:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Shailender Singh .Article 3 70 and Reactions in J&K State

the state and its people - be he a Nizam or a Maharaja. The will of the people was
thus considered more important than any other factor. So the accession of J&K
state, which had been made by its ruler Maharaja Hari Singh on October 26, 1947,
could not be finalized without ascerfaining the will of the people of the state.
Moreover, Pandit Nehru had given a word to this Pakistani counterpart which
involved plebiscite-under the U.N.O.11 But unfortunately,/ in the subsequent
years, the plebisicite coułd not take place . To find a way out, therefore special
status was accepted for J&K State.

32 It is also a fact while all other states of India had voluntarily joined the Indian Union
immediately after its independence, J&K state had not acceded to the Indian Union
in the normal course, but three months later and that too, under compulsion, when
the state's forces failed to resist the attack of the raiders from Pakistan. To save
his throne and Kashmiri identity, the Maharaja had to seek the help of Indian troops.
Hence, "Instrument of Accession" was signed on October 26, 1947.

3.3 Another fact worth notice is that almost all the Princely states whichsoever joined
the Indian Union had to sign the Instrument of Accession (like J&K). But all these
states either voluntarily or under the opinion of public signed the Instrument of
Merger with India but J&K was never asked to sign it. To India, therefore, the J&K
state was like a special guest which had joined her later in special circumstances
and deserved special arrangements in their new house. As a result special status
was accepted for the J&K state by the Indian Parliament on October 17, 1949 with
the adoption of Article 370.

3.4 At that time Pandit Nehru was abroad and Home Minister Sardar Patel (who was
also the Deputy Prime Minister) refuting the long opposition of Maulana Hasrat
Mohani said that thè history of ground realities of J&K state were such as necessitated
a special «tatus.

3.5 The J&K National Conference, the Indian National Cogress,12 J. P. Narayan13- The
Daily Khidmat an official organ of the National Conference and The Such of
Jammu-a-pro-National Conference weekly welcomed the resolution.14

3.6 As expected there was a mixed reaction to this resolution. The All Jammu and
Kashmir Praja Parishad and the All Jammu & Kashimr Sahayak Sabha opposed
the setting up a separate Constituent Assembly for Jammu and Kashmir to decide
its future when all the political parties of the state had already given a unanimous
verdict for accession to India They favoured the full integration of the state with
India and the application of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir state in
its entirety. They regarded it as another move for an Independent Kashmir.*15

IV

4.1 In view of the strategic importance of the state boradering five independent states,
including two Communist countries,18 the former Soviet Union and the people's
Republic of China, the Western powers were not only interested in establishing their
politico-minitary influence over Kashmir, for sowing animsity between India and
Pakistan, but also to make it a direct stronghold from where its rulers could wield
a direct whip over India and Pakistan.18

469

This content downloaded from 122.161.50.49 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 15:40:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Proceedings, IHC : 54th Session, 1993

The Anglo-American Block, therefore, severely criticised the convening of the

state's Constituent Assembly. They were of the view that such a move should
prejudice the issue before the Security Council 20 in India's favour.

4.3 It was indeed unfortunate that the special status created special problems for and
fears among the minorities of the state were not provided any safeguard, hence they
felt insecure and isolated. Apart from it, the Land Reforms were introduced in early
1950, by which large estates were abolished and tillers were given the proprietory
rights. These reforms were applied on cultivated land which mostly belonged to the
Hindus and the tillers were the Muslims. But these reforms were not applied to
orchards which mostly belonged to the Muslims. Thus the major policies like the
LandReforms of 1950 either directed against the Hindu minorities or it appeared so.
The non-Muslims of the state, mainly in the Jammu region, naturally demanded the
complete integration of the state with the Indian Union. Their party, the Jammu &
Kashmir Praja Parishad, launched a movement for Ek Nishan, Ek Vidhan and Ek
Pardhan (one flag, one Constitution and one President). The like-minded parties at
Delhi, especially the Bhartiya JanSangh supported the movement. But Nehru disliked
the agitation as it was likely to antagonise Sheikh Abdullah, and his followers in
the Valley.21

4.4 Since then, the state of J&K is enjoying special status and most significantly, it can
retrace its steps towards the complete integration that it had willingly taken inthe
past forty years. So, today this troubled state - rather like the state of Catalonia in
Spain - is well-integrated with the rest of the country with her own identity and
autonomy carefully safeguarded.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1 . Shailender Singh Jamwal, Executive - Legislative Relationship in J&K State 1934-

Historical Prespective (An unpublished thesis 1991, submitted to the Universit
Jammu), p. 3.
2. Ibid.

3. A discussion with Dr. A.C. Bose, Professor. & Head of P.G. Deptt. of
University.

4. The Dogra Sadar Sabha's office, Jammu. File No. unknown, 1927.

5. The Maharaja's Private Secretary's letter No. 2354 dated January 31, 1927, to the
Revenue Member of the Council.

6. Manohar Mahajan (Lecturer in English) in a seminar on Kashmir Imbroglio dated, 15

March, 1991, Doda.

7. Shilender Singh Jaswal, Executive-Legislative Relationship in J&K State, 1934-53.

8. B.P. Sharma's article in The Kashmir Times (Jammu) dated May 27, 1991.
9. Ibid.

10. Constituent Assembly of India Deptt., X., dated October 17, 1949
11. Pandit Nehru's letter to Maharaja Hari Singh, dated December 27

470

This content downloaded from 122.161.50.49 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 15:40:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Shailender Singh : Article 3 70 and Reactions in J&K State

12. Amrit Bazar Patrika, Calcutta, October 31, 1950.

13. The Hindustan Times, November 24, 1950.

14. The Constituent Assembly for J&K State Press hails the decision -Kashmir Bureau of
Information, File C-4 (Part-I), October 1950, August 1951, Information Department,
Srinagar.

15. The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, December 18, 1950 and a Pamphlet issued by
Durga Dass Verma, Secretary, All J&K Praja Parishad on March 12, 1951,
JanSangh's Head Office, Jammu.

16. Dawn, Karachi, November 1, 1950; The Hindustan Times, December 28, 1950.

17. Dawn, Karachi, November 4, 1950, p. 10.

18. Bal raj Puri, Communism in Kashmir, Institute of Political and Social Studies, 21 1 , Park
Street, Calcutta-17, 1961, p.3.

19. Vijay Kumar, Anglo-American Plot Against Kashmir, People's Publishing House Ltd.,
Bombay, 1954, p. 6.

20. H.S. Gururaja Rao, Legal Aspects of the Kashmir Problem, Asia Publishing House,
New Delhi, 1967, p. 81. 21. Shailender Singh Jamwal, "Dismissal of Sheikh Abdullah
Government in 1953". Research Paper presented at the Annual Session of the Indian
History Congress (51st session), Calcutta, 1990.

21 . Shailendra Singh Jamwal, "Dismissal of Shiekh Abdullah Government in 1953", Research

paper presented at the Annual Session of the Indian History Congress (51st Session),
Calcutta, 1990.

471

This content downloaded from 122.161.50.49 on Mon, 28 Oct 2024 15:40:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms