Shadab Peerzada
In a passionate address to the Lok Sabha on Monday, Srinagar MP Syed Agha Ruhullah Mehdi called for the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood and the reinstatement of its pre-1953 constitutional position, emphasizing the historical and political significance of the region’s autonomy. Mehdi argued that the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019 had deeply alienated the people of Jammu and Kashmir, undermining their trust in the Indian Union. He highlighted the pre-1953 era as a time when Kashmir enjoyed a unique relationship with India, governed by mutual respect and constitutional guarantees. Mehdi’s speech resonated with demands for justice and reconciliation, urging the central government to address the aspirations of Kashmiris by restoring their democratic rights and honoring the commitments made during the accession. His appeal underscored the need for dialogue and political resolution to heal the wounds of the past and build a more inclusive future for Jammu and Kashmir. Agha Syed Ruhullah statement is welcomed by all sects of society who feel the sentiments.
The year 1953 stands as a watershed moment in the history of Jammu and Kashmir, marking a dramatic shift in the region’s political trajectory. The dismissal of Sheikh Abdullah as Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir and the subsequent erosion of the region’s autonomy have been subjects of intense debate, both in historical and political circles. The events of 1953 not only altered the course of Kashmir’s relationship with India but also laid the groundwork for decades of political unrest and identity struggles. This editorial delves into the pre-1953 position of Jammu and Kashmir, the case for full autonomy, the events of 1953, and their lasting implications, alongside commentaries from prominent politicians and historians.
The Pre-1953 Position: A Unique Autonomy
Before 1953, Jammu and Kashmir enjoyed a unique constitutional position within the Indian Union. The Instrument of Accession, signed by Maharaja Hari Singh in 1947, granted India control over defense, foreign affairs, and communications, while the state retained autonomy over other matters in the muslim dominated state. State of Jammu and Kashmir defying the partition of India made the choice to remain with secular India. Although, acceding to India and losing sovereignty Jammu and Kashmir demands special status under the constitution of India and this arrangement further solidified by Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which accorded Jammu and Kashmir a special status, allowing it to have its own constitution and flag.
Sheikh Abdullah, the charismatic leader of the National Conference, played a pivotal role in shaping Kashmir’s political landscape during this period. His vision of “Naya Kashmir” (New Kashmir) sought to combine socialism, secularism, and democracy, with a strong emphasis on land reforms and equitable development. Abdullah’s close association with India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, initially seemed to promise a harmonious relationship between Srinagar and New Delhi. However, cracks began to appear in this relationship as Abdullah’s rhetoric increasingly leaned toward greater autonomy and self-determination for Kashmir. His insistence on full autonomy and his reluctance to fully integrate Kashmir into India raised eyebrows in New Delhi, where the central government viewed his stance as a potential threat to national unity.
The Turning Point: The Dismissal of Sheikh Abdullah in 1953
The political crisis of 1953 culminated in the dramatic dismissal of Sheikh Abdullah as Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. On August 9, 1953, Abdullah was arrested and replaced by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, a leader more amenable to New Delhi’s interests. This move was orchestrated with the tacit support of the central government, which viewed Abdullah’s growing assertiveness as a challenge to India’s sovereignty over Kashmir. The dismissal of Abdullah marked the beginning of a gradual erosion of Kashmir’s autonomy. Over the following decades, successive governments in New Delhi and Srinagar chipped away at the special status granted under Article 370, centralizing power and reducing the state’s ability to govern itself. This period also saw the rise of political discontent in Kashmir, as many Kashmiris viewed the central government’s actions as a betrayal of the promises made during the accession.
The Case for Full Autonomy
The case for full autonomy in Jammu and Kashmir was rooted in the region’s unique history, culture, and political aspirations. Proponents of autonomy argued that the Instrument of Accession and Article 370 were not merely legal documents but symbols of a solemn compact between Kashmir and India. They contended that any attempt to dilute Kashmir’s autonomy would undermine the trust between the two entities and fuel separatist sentiments. Sheikh Abdullah, in his speeches and writings, often emphasized the need for Kashmir to retain its distinct identity while remaining part of India. He believed that full autonomy was essential to preserve Kashmir’s cultural and political heritage and to ensure the region’s development in line with the aspirations of its people. Jammu and Kashmir being having pivotal geographic location as it is the suitable base to overlook central Asia especially China, Russia and Pakistan, the political stability and peace was necessary for it, therefore autonomy would have provided it the chance to pursue the path.
Post-1953: A Fractured Relationship
The period after 1953 witnessed a steady decline in Kashmir’s autonomy and a growing sense of alienation among its people. The central government’s interventions in Kashmir’s affairs, coupled with allegations of electoral malpractice and political repression, further exacerbated the region’s grievances. The 1980s and 1990s saw the rise of armed insurgency and widespread unrest, as Kashmir became a flashpoint in the broader India-Pakistan conflict. The abrogation of Article 370 in August 2019 by the Indian government marked the culmination of this process, effectively ending Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and dividing it into two union territories. While the central government argued that this move would bring development and integration, critics viewed it as the final blow to Kashmir’s autonomy and a violation of the region’s historical rights. In reality the abrogation has not only made China the third country to claim the lands but it has also created a sense of alienation among the local people towards the Indian political establishment.
Commentaries on the 1953 Kashmir Case
The events of 1953 have been the subject of extensive analysis and commentary by politicians, historians, and scholars. Here are some notable perspectives:
Jawaharlal Nehru: India’s first Prime Minister, who initially supported Sheikh Abdullah, later justified his dismissal as necessary to preserve national unity. Nehru’s critics, however, argue that his handling of the Kashmir issue was marked by indecision and inconsistency, which ultimately weakened India’s position.
Sheikh Abdullah: In his autobiography, Aatish-e-Chinar, Abdullah lamented the betrayal of Kashmir’s autonomy and accused New Delhi of reneging on its promises. He described his arrest in 1953 as a “stab in the back” and a turning point in Kashmir’s relationship with India.
Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad: Abdullah’s successor defended his actions, claiming that they were necessary to maintain stability and prevent Kashmir from becoming a pawn in the India-Pakistan conflict. However, his tenure is often criticized for its authoritarianism and reliance on central support.
Balraj Puri: A prominent political commentator and historian, Puri argued that the dismissal of Sheikh Abdullah was a “fatal mistake” that alienated the Kashmiri people and sowed the seeds of future conflict. He believed that a more inclusive and democratic approach could have preserved Kashmir’s autonomy while strengthening its ties with India.
A.G. Noorani: A constitutional expert and historian, Noorani has described the events of 1953 as a “constitutional coup” that undermined the principles of federalism and democracy. He has criticized the central government’s interventions in Kashmir as a violation of the spirit of the Instrument of Accession.
Ramachandra Guha: The renowned historian has noted that the dismissal of Sheikh Abdullah marked the beginning of a “long and tragic decline” in Kashmir’s political autonomy. He has argued that the central government’s heavy-handed approach alienated the Kashmiri people and fueled separatist sentiments.
In a significant and impassioned speech in the Lok Sabha, Srinagar MP Syed Agha Ruhullah Mehdi reignited the demand for the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s pre-1953 constitutional position, bringing the long-standing issue back into the national spotlight again. Mehdi, a prominent political figure from the Valley, emphasized that the pre-1953 era represented a time when Jammu and Kashmir enjoyed a unique relationship with India, governed by the Instrument of Accession and Article 370, which guaranteed the state’s autonomy over all matters except defense, foreign affairs, and communications. JKNC always argued that the erosion of this autonomy, beginning with the dismissal of Sheikh Abdullah in 1953, marked a turning point in Kashmir’s political history, leading to decades of discontent and alienation. Mehdi’s call for restoring the pre-1953 position is not just a political demand but a plea to address the historical grievances of the Kashmiri people and rebuild trust between Srinagar and New Delhi. His speech underscores the Agha Ruhullah factor—a renewed push to revisit the promises made to Jammu and Kashmir and to restore the powers it lost in 1953, including control over its internal governance, legislative autonomy, and the ability to define its own identity within the Indian Union. This demand highlights the unresolved complexities of Kashmir’s political journey and the need for a meaningful resolution to ensure lasting peace and justice.
The Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (JKNC), has found itself in a delicate position regarding Srinagar MP Syed Agha Ruhullah Mehdi’s recent demand for the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s pre-1953 constitutional position. While Mehdi’s call resonates with the historical stance of the JKNC, which has long championed the cause of autonomy and the preservation of Article 370, the party appears to be distancing itself from his assertive rhetoric. This isolation of Agha Ruhullah by the JKNC reflects the party’s cautious approach in navigating the current political landscape, where overt demands for autonomy or self-rule are often met with resistance from the central government and risk being labeled as separatist or anti-national.
The JKNC, under the leadership of Farooq Abdullah and Omar Abdullah, has historically advocated for the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and greater autonomy. However, in recent years, the party has adopted a more measured tone, focusing on dialogue and constitutional methods to address the region’s grievances, especially statehood. Agha Ruhullah’s bold demand for the pre-1953 position, which includes full internal autonomy, has put the JKNC in an awkward position. While the party shares his sentiment with the local population, it seems reluctant to fully align with his stance, possibly to avoid confrontation with the BJP Government. This isolation of Agha Ruhullah by the JKNC highlights the internal tensions within Kashmir’s political leadership and the challenges of balancing historical principles with pragmatic politics. While Mehdi’s demand has reignited a crucial debate about the sincerity of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and Chief Minister Omar Abdullah who gained a massive majority of votes on the issue. The party’s reluctance to fully back Mehdi’s call may also reflect JKNC’s commitment to its historical legacy and its ability to represent the aspirations of the Kashmiri people in these challenging times.
Shadab Peerzada (Politician, Writer and Technologist). Author can be reached on pzShadab@gmail.com and on Twitter/X: @ShadabPeerzada
