The Great Speeches of Modern India

by Rudrangshu Mukherjee

  1. Let Sheikh Abdullah declare that he accepts the sovereignty of this Parliament. There cannot be two sovereign Parliaments in India. You talk of Kashmir being a part of India, and Sheikh Abdullah talks of a sovereign Parliament for Kashmir. It is inconsistent. It is contradictory. This Parliament does not mean a few of us here who are opposing this. This Parliament includes a majority of people who will not be swayed by any small considerations. And why should he be afraid of accepting the sovereignty of this Parliament of free India?

  2. Secondly, it is not a matter of changing the provisions of the Constitution by the President’s order. Let us look at some of the changes which are being sought for. We are supporters of the Maharaja! That is what is said against us. I have never met the Maharaja. I do not know him personally. We are not supporters of this Maharaja, or of any Maharaja as such. But the Maharaja is there not by his own free will. The Parliament of India, the Constitution has made him what he is, namely, the constitutional head of Jammu and Kashmir. And what is the irony? At present Sheikh Abdullah’s government is responsible to this Maharaja according to the Constitution, responsible to one who is being described as a wretched fellow who has to be turned out lock, stock and barrel. The Maharaja is there as a constitutional head. If you feel that this should be taken out, change your Constitution. Say that there will be no hereditary Rajpramukhs. It is a matter worthy of consideration, let us consider it. But see the way in which it has been put: a Hindu Maharaja is being removed. That is one of the war cries in Pakistan. But who finished the royal powers of Hindu Maharajas? Not Sheikh Abdullah, but the Constitution of free India. We did it. We said that no ruler would have any extraordinary powers, that he will be just head of the government which may be technically responsible to him but later on responsible to an elected legislature. But now great credit is being taken that a unique performance is being done in Kashmir. In every speech of his he gave it: the Maharaja, the Dogra raj is being finished. Is that a propaganda? Is that necessary? You are flogging a dead horse. It is finished. What is the use of saying it?

  What about the elected Governor? I have got here the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly. The Prime Minister will remember that in our own Constitution we at first made a provision for an elected Governor, and then later on Sarder Patel and the Prime Minister and others felt that in the democratic set-up that we contemplated an elected Governor had no place. Read the speech. It was stated that the Governor will be there to act as the representative of the President and if the Governor is elected by the people or the legislature and the Chief Minister also will be elected: as such there is every likelihood of a clash, then again, the Governor will be a party man. And the Prime Minister pointed out all these considerations and claimed that there was very special reason why in order to retain the unity of India and contact between the Centre and all the states, the Governor should be nominated by the President. You just ignore these basic points because Sheikh Abdullah says: ‘I want an elected head now.’ Why can you not tell him and others what you have done in the Constitution, that originally we provided for an elected Governor but after a good deal of thought we did away with that? Even then I say if today in your wisdom you feel that an elected head is a necessity and it will help you, consider it. Bring it up as a specific proposal. Let us discuss the pros and cons of it. But suddenly my friend Mr Hiren Mukerjee says: people are clamouring for an elected head everywhere. Are you going to have elected heads everywhere? In fact, as things are happening we may abolish governors altogether. Governorships are often reserved for various classes of persons—disappointed, defeated, rejected, unwanted ministers and so forth. We need not have this class at all. Or, if you want to have them, have them. I am not particularly interested. But this is a change for which no justification is given.

  And then the flag. The flag has a significance. It will not do for the Prime Minister to say that it is a matter of sentiment. It was announced in the papers three days ago that the Indian flag will fly only on two ceremonial occasions and otherwise the state flag alone will fly there.

  If you feel that the unity and integrity of India are not affected and it will not lead to fissiparous tendencies being generated, accept it and do it for all. But why do it as a matter of surrender to Sheikh Abdullah’s demand?

  He wanted to call himself the Prime Minister. That is how he first started. Some of us did not like it. We know one Prime Minister of India including Kashmir, that is the Prime Minister who is sitting here. How can you have two Prime Ministers, one Prime Minister in Delhi and another Prime Minister in Srinagar, who will not call himself the Chief Minister, but a Prime Minister. At first I thought it was a small matter and we should not look at it but see how the process is developing, some sort of special treatment at every step and he must be treated in a very different way. Look at the citizenship rights and fundamental rights. What is it that we are doing? Has the House considered it? Has the House discussed the pros and cons of the recommendations which have been made? You are changing without giving much thought to the provisions of the Constitution regarding citizenship. It was said that rich people are rushing to Kashmir and purchasing property. As the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement in Article 19 (5) there is a provision. We discussed this Article threadbare when we framed the Constitution. There were attempts made by various provinces and they wanted to have some special protection against unauthorized purchases of land on a large scale. What is it that we have said? We have said that any state legislature may pass a law, imposing reasonable restrictions regarding acquisition of property or movement from one part to another in the public interest or in the interest of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

  If Sheikh Abdullah feels that in Kashmir some special restriction should be done, the clause is there. I would like to ask the Prime Minister categorically about this. He has not mentioned it. He has skipped over it. Is it intended that the restrictions which the Kashmir Assembly will impose will be in accordance with this exception or is it proposed to give it something more? There are four classes of citizens. I have got the details, but I have not the time to go through them. But those were done in the time of the much cursed Maharaja. Are they to be maintained or are they going to abolish the four different categories of citizenship? I am reminded of a story which was written by Lord Curzon in a book. A distinguished nobleman from England went to the court of the Shah of Persia 50 or 60 years ago accompanied by his wife. Both of them were presented and the Shah was a bit inattentive and the secretary asked: ‘What should be the honour done to the lady?’ There were three different categories of Order of Chastity and the award was made Order of Chastity—class three. That is how the order came out and then it was realized that something had been done which was of a staggering character, and of course amends were made after the damage was done. Four classes of citizenship in Jammu and Kashmir—what for? They should be abolished. There should be only one class of citizenship. Would Indians take all your property? It was not suggested that Indians should go and purchase property as they liked. Supposing some Indian comes and purchases some property, you may have legislative measures. We have accepted it. What is the fear? We have a Kashmiri Prime Minister of India. We have a Kashmiri Home Minister of India. We are happy in India. We do not mind it. We welcome them. What is the fear? Is it feared that Indians will go and invade Kashmir and one of them will become the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir?

  I have never visited this beautiful part. I would like to go and stay there for some time. I have not got the money to purchase a house. In any case, I would like to go there. This is what you have in regard to fundamental rights. You are having new changes there which are very difficult to justify. The Prime Minister mentioned two or three things—scholarships and services, etc. What is this ‘etc.’? And why services? In services, do you want to make a difference between one citizen and another? Even there, as you know, in our Constitution, Parliament and Parliament alone has the right to make special provision regarding e
ntrance to services for those who have to be protected. Now there are similar demands made in the South. I have been going through their demands during the last few weeks. They also feel perturbed by the strict operation of some of these provisions. When you throw open the doors to them, they also will want similar protection.

  There is another thing to which the Prime Minister has not referred. I was really amazed to find how a special provision could be made. As you know, two lakhs of people have gone away to Pakistan. There is a provision that a special law will be incorporated to get these people back to Kashmir. War is still going on. On the one hand fundamental rights regarding civil liberty are proposed to be made more strict, and on the other, you are going to throw open the door and allow Pakistanis to go to Kashmir; for this there is to be a special law and there is a special agreement. Why this anxiety on the part of Sheikh Abdullah to make a special provision for getting back those who ran away to Pakistan and who are not prepared to come back. Is there any point in it? How will it affect security? Those who have been killed cannot go back. Those who are alive can come back tomorrow if they honestly believe in India and if they really want to live in Jammu. They must be tested. Let them come back. No special provision is needed for it. So far as Jammu is concerned, as you know, it was in a most tragic state. It was done away by both sides. There were Muslims who were bitter and there were Hindus who were bitter. That was a dark period when many parts of India were like that, but today, what is the position? You have allowed how many thousands, I forgot the number. They have come away from Jammu and Kashmir and are a burden on India. Why should not there be a special provision here in the agreement that promptly they will be taken back to Jammu and Kashmir? There are several thousand of them who have come. Why are they not going back? I do not know how many Pandits have come away from Kashmir. They also must go back to Kashmir. So far as the other portion is concerned, that also is a serious matter. In the one-third portion of Jammu and Kashmir which is now under Pakistani occupation, nearly one lakh of Hindus and Sikhs have come and taken shelter, within the Kashmir territory. What will happen to them? They will have to be taken care of. You are thinking of those who have become Pakistanis for the time being. You will reconvert them and reconfer on them the status of Kashmiri citizens but those unfortunate beings who today have taken shelter, how will they be given accommodation? Is there land enough for them? These are matters which have not received any attention.

  As regards the emergency provision, it is an amazing stand. If there is an emergency on account of internal disturbance, the President of India will not have the last say. Why this fear of the President of India? Can you contemplate a more gratuitous insult to the President of India? Here the Kashmir Government must conform to the Constitution. Why should they request if there is an internal disturbance which is the creation of their own misdeeds?

  Why should they request you if, for instance, they are in league with others from the upper side, China or Russia, through our other friends? Why should they come and request you for your interference? I would expect the Prime Minister to tell whether the other emergency provisions here apply or not. As you know, there are two other very important emergency provisions in the Constitution. Article 354 relates to application of provisions relating to distribution of revenues while a proclamation of Emergency is in operation and the other Article is 356 relating to provisions in case of failure of Constitutional machinery in the State. Has Sheikh Abdullah accepted the application of Article 356 or has he accepted the more important provision contained in Article 360—provisions as to financial emergency? Has he accepted that provision? The Prime Minister does not make any reference to it. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction also has not yet been accepted.

  I shall conclude, by making this constructive suggestion. These comments which I made, naturally I had to make without commenting in detail on the reactions of Sheikh Abdullah. He wrote to me and said that he would have liked to meet me when he was in Delhi last time. I was not here on that day. So I could not meet him. I sent him a friendly reply. Perhaps I would meet him some time. It is not a question of his meeting me or I meeting him. I submit that we must proceed according to certain standards. First of all there is no question of the President by virtue of his power to make orders altering the provisions of the Constitution in material respects. If the Prime Minister feels that a case has been made out for re-examination of certain important provisions, for instance, land, if you feel that land should be taken without payment or compensation, provide for it in the Constitution. You consider all these items and make your provisions so elastic that you can apply them either to the whole of India or you can apply them to only such parts where the Parliament of India will feel that such special treatment is necessary. Proceed in accordance with a constitutional manner, not just play with the Constitution. It is a sacred document, and it is a document on which much labour and much thought were bestowed. If you feel some changes are necessary in order to take into consideration the new set up that is slowly developing in India, whether in Kashmir or other parts of India, by all means let the people of the country have a chance to express their opinion.

  Lastly, a charge was levelled that some of us have advocated separate consideration of Jammu and Ladakh. I would assure you and the House that I do not want that Jammu and Kashmir should be partitioned. I know the horrors of Partition. I know the results which may ensure if Partition comes. But the responsibility for preventing Partition will rest on those who are today the masters of Jammu and Kashmir and are not prepared to adopt the Constitution of India. What is the crime if today the people of Jammu claim that they should be treated separately, in the sense that they should be allowed to join fully with India—mark it, it is not a question of running away from India—if they say that they would like to accept in toto the Constitution of Free India, is there any crime that they then commit? I am not suggesting that you partition Jammu and Kashmir. I am not suggesting that you send Kashmir or Kashmir Valley out of India. And it is not for me or for us sitting in this House to decide this matter. As the Prime Minister pointed out very rightly, it is the people of that territory who will have to decide. Now suppose the people of Jammu and Ladakh feel that either it should be full accession in relation to the whole of Jammu and Kashmir, or if that is not acceptable to Sheikh Abdullah, then, at least these two provinces, the two separate entities could be justified historically or otherwise, that they should be allowed to join with India. Let Kashmir continue in any way that it likes, even with more autonomy, with less possibility of interference by India; that is a possibility which we cannot rule out. I hope that this question will be considered in its fullest possible implications.

  My friend from Kashmir, Maulana Masudi, for whom I have very great regard—I tried to follow his speech this morning referred to Jammu, the last question which I would answer. Well, if this demand is made by Jammu, he said Jammu is a province which in 1941 had a Muslim majority. He said that, but did not complete the story. Undoubtedly it was a Muslim majority Province in 1941, but it became a Muslim majority including those districts which have now fallen into the Pakistani occupied areas.

  I am not going to surrender them. I am very glad he has put the question. The Prime Minister says that area will not be reoccupied, but it is a different question. You are not going to re-occupy it, and it is not possible. In any case those people have worked against Jammu and Kashmir, they have become, as has been repeatedly said, more friendly to Pakistan than to India.

  If you take the 1951 census figures—the figures have not been published, but it is on the basis of the territory that is under our occupation—75 percent of the population of Jammu will be Hindus. But I am not proceeding on the basis of Hindus and Muslims. Let me make it clear. I am proceeding on the basis of the will of the people to come to India either in whole or in part.

  If these two Provinces, Ladakh and Jammu, say that they will come to India with all these subjects, make it possible for them to do so.


  The same right which you are claiming for Kashmir may also be demanded by the people of Jammu and Ladakh. Let us proceed in a friendly spirit. Sheikh Abdullah himself said about a month ago that he will have no objection if the people of Jammu and Ladakh really felt that they would go to India. I am not saying that you have it done immediately or you proceed in that way, but let it be possible for the people residing in those areas to make up their minds which way it will be good to proceed, and it will also be consistent with the same principles of self-determination which constitute the basic claims of Sheikh Abdullah, supported by the Prime Minister.

  Tibet (New Delhi, August 1959)

  ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE (1924–)

  In 1959, the Dalai Lama fled from Tibet into India. He was given a very popular welcome by sections of the Indian people much to the resentment of the Chinese government. There had always been support for Tibetan independence in India led by Jayaprakash Narayan and the Jan Sangh. Vajpayee, then only thirty-five, was winning his spurs in the Lok Sabha as a Jan Sangh MP and he spoke with passion on Tibet. This is a rare, early (translated) speech made by Vajpayee who was emerging as an extraordinarily dramatic orator. He usually spoke in Hindi and sadly much of his speeches lose their power in translation.

  Sir, I beg to move:

  ‘This House is of opinion that government should refer the Tibetan issue to the United Nations.’

  Sir, the General Assembly of the United Nations is going to meet from 15 September 1959. The Government of India has decided to raise the question of China’s admission into the United Nations. By this resolution, I want this House to recommend to the government that the Tibetan issue should also be raised in the United Nations.