Sino-Korean Split – Multiple Viewpoints

History is a very interesting thing. Friends become foes in a jiffy and then, they break their heads to mend ways. And it will look more interesting if there are multiple viewpoints of this happening. Just have a look at the Cultural Revolution. This is something internal to China. But, Korea gets jittery. This escalates to the level of an economic sanctions but China is later mollified. The case stands thus. Korea is not happy and is scared of Cultural Revolution. But, it hasn’t got the guts to oppose China. At least, they expected China to go ballistic so that they can cry victim and extract goodies. Everyone, everywhere is criticizing the Koreans and not the Chinese. And it is worthy to note, only Soviet Russia said the problem is because of China and not Korea. They are more interested in fishing in these troubled waters for their benefit and nothing more. Does this reflect upon the real power projections and interests involved?

The DPRK Attitude Toward the so-called ‘Cultural Revolution’ in China – 07 March 1967

With the exception of Kim Il Sung, Korean workers avoid conversations on this subject [of the Cultural Revolution] or limit themselves to general phrases which mean nothing.

As events develop in China the KWP leadership has exhibited ever-growing concern and caution. In a conversation with the Soviet Ambassador in November 1966 Kim Il Sung said, “The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution has seriously alarmed us.” Explaining the reasons for such alarm, Kim Il Sung pointed to the fact that KWP members “still are not so experienced [zakaleny] as to correctly understand everything”

The leaders of the KWP speak of the so-called ‘Great Cultural Revolution’ as a ‘great madness [obaldenie]’, having nothing in common with either culture or a revolution.”

“The Korean comrades speak of the ‘thousands of victims during the so-called ‘revolution’, the ‘suicides’, the ‘political chaos’, and the ‘chaos in the economy,’ about Mao Zedong as ‘an old fool who has gone out of his mind.‘ In lectures they cite instances of political and economic pressure on the DPRK from the Chinese government.”

“Speaking at a festive meeting (dedicated to the 19th anniversary of the Korean People’s Army) O Jin-u, Deputy Minister of Defense, said, ‘The hope of any rift in our Party and our revolutionary ranks is stupid naïveté.’ This statement might be regarded as a response to the Chinese for their attempts to conduct a campaign of slander against the DPRK.”

“Questions (about the Cultural Revolution) were raised in a report by Kim Il Sung at a KWP Party conference (October 1966). Although there was no direct criticism of the Chinese leadership in his speech, it was later explained to KWP members in lectures and conversations to whom the accusations of left opportunism were addressed. In a conversation with the Soviet Ambassador in October 1966, Kim Il Sung said that, “They could not fail to touch on theoretical issues at the KWP conference inasmuch as right now a big uproar had developed in China around the ‘Great Cultural Revolution,’ which might exert a great influence on our Party (see our ref. Nº 286 of 21 October 1966).

The DPRK MFA requested that all accredited embassies in Pyongyang remove photographic showcases beginning 1 February. The Korean comrades did not conceal that this measure was directed against the Chinese government. All embassies except China’s carried out this instruction. The photographic showcase propagandizing the so-called “Cultural Revolution” still hangs at the Chinese Embassy in Pyongyang. Repeated statements of the DPRK MFA directed at the Chinese Embassy remain unanswered. The Korean authorities have resorted to “administrative measures,” forbidding residents of the city from walking past the showcase. Also, a photographic showcase was recently reopened by the Albanian Embassy in Pyongyang. The Korean authorities regarded these actions by the Chinese and Albanians as “provocative and criminal.”

Speaking before representatives of the accredited embassies of the socialist countries in Pyongyang, Pak [Cheon-seok], the Chief of the Protocol Department of the DPRK MFA, said that “our people are indignant at the ‘arrogant’ behavior of the Chinese. The Chinese and the Albanians are behaving like hysterical people,” “they are not able to avoid responsibility for the criminal actions damaging the interests of the DRPK.”

Chinese students and part of the specialists have left Pyongyang.

The newly appointed DPRK Ambassador to China has not yet left for Beijing. The Korean leaders speak indignantly of attacks by the Red Guards on officials of the Korean Embassy in Beijing.

In conversations the Korean leaders sharply condemn the actions of the Mao Zedong and his group, and correctly assess the harm events in China are causing to the international Communist movement and the socialist camp. At the same time, the Korean leadership does not dare openly criticize the Chinese, trying to avoid anything that might be used by the Chinese for anti-Korean purposes.

Telegram from Pyongyong to Bucharest 20 May 1967

It is noteworthy that the Korean side was the one which took initiative to make public, internally and externally, the precarious character of its relations with China.

At these meetings, briefings about the situation in China and the state of Sino-Korean relations were made, assigning all the blame to China, which was accused of interfering in North Korea’s internal affairs and of trying to strangle it economically.

In its relations with other socialist countries, the Korean authorities also wanted to make it known that their relations with China are worsening, making Beijing responsible for some of DPRK’s internal economic problems: cooking oil and grain shortages, petroleum products, coke coal.

It is worth noting that the Chinese, although well aware of how North Korea exploits its relations with China, adopted an indifferent, immovable and expectative attitude, a position which implied no consequences or replies to the various actions undertaken by the North Koreans with a view to aggravating their relations with China. Therefore, the Chinese did not publish any materials on DPRK-PRC relations, they did not respond to the declarations made at press conferences or in newspapers, which should be noted as an exception to the rule. Through this [approach] the Chinese wanted to find out to what extent the North Koreans are willing to aggravate their relations with China.

It seems that the attitude of the Chinese confused the North Koreans, who expected harsh retorts from the PRC, based on the characteristic style of Chinese propaganda. The North Koreans were hoping to create an opportunity to pose as the victims of Chinese attacks, which would undoubtedly have increased their chances and leverage in their relations with other socialist countries. However, the attitude of the Chinese made the North Koreans more cautious [in their dealings with the PRC].

a. The level of diplomatic representation for the two countries is that of charges d’affaires. The Chinese ambassador left Pyongyang on October 26, 1966, without having returned to his position.
Unofficial sources stated that the ambassador has been imprisoned (previously, he was the first secretary of the Shenyang province party committee). This rumor also appeared in relation to his predecessor.

b. Sino-Korean cultural relations have been inexistent for almost two years, and beforehand, they were limited to sports teams exchanges. At the contests between these sports teams, no tickets were sold and the sports halls were filled with people selected [by the authorities].

d. On consular affairs, individual traffic and on-the-border commerce reached a halt, while repatriations and family visits were stopped. Chinese language schools in the DPRK were closed down for an unlimited duration.

f. The North Korean press does not publish any news related to the PRC.

There are no visible signs that the current state of Sino-Korean relations will change in one way or another. Because the North Koreans have no achieved the desired outcomes from aggravating the Chinese, meaning that the Chinese did not respond to Pyongyang’s actions, which reveals the scorn and the self-confidence of the Chinese, it can be assumed that the North Koreans will limit themselves to those actions that they have undertaken until now. The Korean leadership does not want to irk the PRC too much because this would jeopardize the military support that the Chinese could offer in case of an armed conflict with the South Koreans and the Americans and because it fears this would reactivate the Yan’an faction, in exile in Beijing, composed of Kim Il Sung’s old party activist comrades which the North Korean leader wanted to eliminate.

At the time, these leaders were accused of undermining the party. The reactivation of this faction would create serious problems for the current North Korean leadership especially with regard to the cult of personality in North Korea, by disclosing the fictitious nature of some of Kim Il Sung’s achievements.

Report of Hungarian Embassy, China to the Hungarian Foreign Ministry 20 November 1967

As an attachment, hereby I submit a news that was published in the international news column of the October 27 issue of the Red Guard newspaper named Dongfanghong.

During the Cultural Revolution, it already happened on several occasions that the [Red Guards] launched [verbal] attacks on the Korean leaders, but the utterances made in this article were the sharpest so far. The diplomats of the Korean embassy made extremely indignant declarations about the anti-Korean attack launched by the Chinese. We are of the opinion that the publication of this article played a role in that the Korean party sent a higher-level delegation to Moscow.

[…]

In recent times the Korean revisionists have shown an anti-Chinese tendency that is becoming more and more insane. The Korean revisionists are terrified by the Cultural Revolution. They say that nearly all intellectuals were killed in the Cultural Revolution. What scroundels they are, damn it! Anxious to pursue a policy of cooperating with the Soviet Union and opposing China, the Korean revisionists wholly deny the immense distinction that our heroic volunteers gained in the course of the anti-American resistance war aimed at helping Korea. Mad with rage, the gang of Kim Il Sung is slandering us by claiming that the assistance [we] gave to Korea during the anti-American war was motivated by our „national egoism” and we did that „for our own good.” It is even more hateful that the Korean revisionists are slandering us by claiming that the Korean War was „provoked” by us. This is how low the Korean revisionists have fallen! Now they are even digging up the graves of our volunteers who heroically sacrificed their lives in the Korean War! What more will we tolerate if we tolerate that? We sternly warn Kim Il Sung and his ilk that those who cooperate with the USA and the revisionists, and pursue an anti-Chinese policy, will come to a bad end. Sooner or later, the Korean people will rise up and settle up with you.

Report of Hungarian Embassy, Soviet Russia to the Hungarian Foreign Ministry 20 November 1967

According to the information received from the competent department of the Soviet Foreign Ministry, several signs indicate that Sino-Korean relations keep worsening. Among these signs, we mention first of all that recently new pamphlets were published in Beijing, which contained a sharp attack on the Korean Workers’ Party and the person of Kim Il Sung, threatening the leader of the Korean Workers’ Party with that the Korean people would take vengeance upon him for his revisionist policy. The estrangement of relations was also indicated by, for instance, the circumstances under which the latest Chinese holiday was celebrated in the DPRK. At the reception of the Chinese embassy, the level of representation on the Koreans’ part was very low, the telegram of congratulations the Korean leaders sent to the Chinese was very cold, and no festive mass meetings took place in the country on the occasion of the Chinese national holiday. According to the information available for our [Soviet] comrades, the Chinese chargé d’affaires to Pyeongyang complains of that his opportunities to maintain contacts are very limited.

In the course of their contacts with the Soviet comrades, the Koreans, on their part, lay a rather great stress on the worsening of Sino-Korean relations, and they particularly emphasize that these relations have worsened in the economic field as well, for China does not supply those traditional export articles which are of primary importance for the Korean national economy, or it supplies [only] a relatively small amount of them. For example, coking coal, without which the furnaces of the DPRK would cease work, is such an article.

Nevertheless, it is the impression of our comrades that although the Chinese side indeed tends to reduce its economic contacts with Korea, the Korean side exaggerates the extent of that [pressure] while negotiating with the Soviet comrades. The obvious reason of this is that they strive to bring the Soviet Union to increase [Soviet-North Korean] economic contacts to such an extent that would also include certain opportunities of over-insurance for the DPRK.

In the course of the Moscow negotiations, which lasted approximately for a month, […] the Korean side proposed a substantial extension of the list of articles exchanged between the two countries, namely, by increasing Soviet exports through the increased supply of machinery and equipment, auto and tractor tires, rolled non-ferrous metals, and other “hard” goods, whereas it intended to increase [North Korean] exports to the Soviet Union by [supplying] goods whose exports had already been halted and of which the Soviet Union had, and has, little need. Despite that, the Soviets, on their part, showed willingness to accept, on the whole, the Korean proposal, with regard to both exports and imports,

Constituent Assembly Debates – State of Kashmir or Jammu and Kashmir – Nehru’s Diatribe

Sir, this very simple motion of my honourable colleague has led some members of refer to almost all connected matters, not with this motion, but in regard to Kashmir, and so we have been led to think of this vast and intricate and difficult problem of Kashmir. It is a little difficult in this context to confine oneself to the simple proposition that has been placed before the House. Nevertheless, I do not intend to go beyond that proposition; not do I think need this House to beyond it although several members may be tempted to do so.
The proposition before the House is a very simple one. Now, I say that I have a vast admiration for the erudition and learning of Professor Shah. Nevertheless, I have followed with some surprise not only what he has said today, but what he has and done in regard to Kashmir for a number of years. I have been also connected with Kashmir in many ways and, in a sense, I belong to Kashmir more particularly than to any part of India. I have been connected with the fight for freedom in Kashmir and I know about the various groups, various people, various individuals from the Maharaja down to number folk there. And so, if I venture to say anything in this House, I do so with far greater authority than Prof. Shah can presume to have on the subject. I speak not as the Prime Minister, but as a Kashmiri and an Indian who has been connected with these matter. It amazed me to hear Prof. Shah propose that the so-called Praja Sabha of Kashmir should send representatives to this House. If Prof. Shah knows anything about Kashmir, he should know that there is nothing more bogus than the Praja Sabha in Kashmir. He ought to know that the whole circumstances under which the last elections were held were fantastic and farcical. He ought to know that it was boycotted by all decent people in Kashmir. It was held in the depth of winter, to avoid people going to the polling booths. And winter in Kashmir is something of which probably Members in this House have no conception of. An honourable Member asked me about winter, and whether it was snowing. But when it snows in a cold country, it is called warm weather. In winter it is 20 to 30 degrees below snowing weather. The election was held when the roads ware impassable, when the passes could not be crossed; in fact, it was just not possible for the voters to go. But apart from that, when the National Conference of Kashmir, in spite of difficulties, difficulties including that of their leaders being in prison, including Sheikh Abdullah and other, in spite of all that, when they decided to contest these elections, then their candidates were arrested, many of them, and all kinds of obstacles ware put in; and it was quite clear that they would not be allowed to stand. So they decided to boycott it and they did boycott it, with the result that the whole national movement of Kashmir boycotted those elections, just as the national movement in 1920 boycotted elections in India. And it was and amazingly successful boycott. Of course people got in. By boycotting you cannot keep another man out; but the percentage of voting was so very small–I forget the exact fraction–it was almost negligible; and the type of people who got in were the type who had opposed the freedom movement throughout, who had done every injury possible to the idea of the freedom of Kashmir till then. And subsequently some of them, when Kashmir adopted this new status and became much freer than it ever was, they subsequently sought refuge in Pakistan. Now that is the kind of body referred to; it is a bogus body; it is really no body at all. It is a disembodied spirit. It does not meet. It does not do anything and many of its members are not just traceable. And now Prof. Shah calmly, tells that the Praja Sabha can elect Members to this honourable House; it is a monstrous proposition.
I admit that it is not desirable for any Members of this House to come by nomination or be selected by some narrow process; but unfortunately many of us here, from the States I means, have not come exactly as we should have liked them to come. They have been sent, partly by nomination, partly by election, by election again, by bodies which are not often properly constituted; but we had to take things as they were, and we wanted them here to help us in this work of constitution-making. So though the process suggested for Kashmir is not ideal, yet I do think that it is a process than has been adopted in regard to many States in India. It is a process where you get a popular government with the representative of the popular party at the head of it, recommending to the Ruler that certain names should go. Even from the point of view of democracy, that is not an incorrect process. It is not 100 per cent. correct; but the House should see what better method you can suggest. I can understand Maulana Hasrat Mohani, and I am inclined to agree with him that it would have been–if I heard hem correctly–it would have been better and more graceful for us to have had the representatives of Kashmir here much earlier. But we did not do it. It was our fault, may be it was other people’s fault; but whatever the reason, we did not do it. It was our fault, may is that a reason why we should continue the error in the future? During the next two or three months, or however long this House meets, when we are going to finalise this Constitution, it is desirable for us to give every opportunity to the representatives of the Kashmir State and of any other State, to come here and participate, even though they have not done so up to this stage. So I submit that the motion moved by Mr. Ayyangar is the only way out of this difficulty.
I would suggest to him and beg of him to accept a small change in the wording of the motion. What he has put down is perfectly correct, he has put down “Kashmir”, as it occurs in the various Acts, etc. He has taken it naturally from these enactments. But because there is a slight confusion in people’s minds, it would be better to describe it a little more fully as “Kashmir State” and then putting within brackets, the words “otherwise known as the State of Kashmir and Jammu”. No doubt, so far as the proposition that people should be entitled to come from Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, I think it is up to us to give them every opportunity to do so. And secondly, so far as the method is concerned, I can think if no other, and no fairer method than what has been proposed in this motion.

Constituent Assembly Debates – State of Kashmir or Jammu and Kashmir – The Debate

The Honourable Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: (Madras: General): Mr. President, Sir, I rise to move:
“That after paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Constituent Assembly Rules, the following paragraph be inserted, namely:-
‘4-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 4, all the seats in the Assembly allotted to the State of Kashmir may be filled by nomination and the representatives of the State to be chosen to fill such seats may be nominated by the Ruler of Kashmir on the advice of his Prime Minister.'”
Sir, very few words are really needed from me to commend this motion to the House. Kashmir is one of the States which under the rules frame for the composition of this Assembly have to be represented in the House Rules have been framed as to how this representation could be secured. But though Kashmir acceded to the Indian Dominion so far back as the end of October 1947, this representation has not materialised. Honourable Members will remember that the conditions in Kashmir have been in a fluid state all these months. The accession itself we asked for by the Ruler of Kashmir; it was supported by the largest political party in the State, and the Governor-General accepted the accession. As I said, that acceptance was somewhere about the end of October 1947.
Before I go to the Rules, I must point out that all States which have acceded to the Indian Dominion have been included in the Schedule to the Constituent Assembly Rules. One of these States is Kashmir. Again, in the Draft Constitution that has been placed before the House, in Part III of Scheduled I, honourable Members will find Kashmir as one of the States which would be put into that Schedule. But, so far as representation goes, the procedure has undergone changes from time to time on account of the difficulties that cropped up in respect of implementing the rules that were originally framed for the return of State’s representatives to this House. The last of such rules is contained in Rule 4 of the Constituent Assembly Rules that are now in force. In this rule, the seats allotted to the States have of the States concerned, and the remainder to be nominated by the Ruler himself.
So far as Kashmir is concerned, the number of seats allotted under these rules to this State is four, that is to say, one or every million of the population. If this rule is to be followed, not less than half of this number would have to be elected by the legislature. There is, under the Constitution of Kashmir, a legislative Assembly which is called the Praja Sabha. Elections to this Assembly took place about the months of December 1946 and January 1947 and this Assembly came into existence soon after these elections were over. There was one meeting held within two or three months therefore, which was convened for the purpose of passing the budget of the State. All this happened before the transfer of power and the change in the status of Indian States that took place after the transfer of power. After the 15th of August 1947, Kashmir stood by itself till, somewhere about the end of October 1947, it acceded to India. There has been no meeting of this Praja Sabha since about April 1947. From October 1947, honourable Members are aware that there was a great deal of disturbance owing to the raids that were made on the western portion of Kashmir State and all that followed. The conditions have been very difficult.
Now, this Assembly has not been in existence since then. It exists perhaps on paper; but it is dead. In October 1947 accession took place. Soon after that took place, the Maharaja set up an emergency administration the head of which was Sheikh Mohammed Abdulla, the leader of the most popular party in Kashmir. In March 1948, he substituted for this emergency administration what he called a popular interim Government, consisting of a Council of Ministers. He called Sheikh Mohammed Abdulla to accept the office of Prime Minister and left it to him to choose his colleagues. This Government was to work on the principle of joint responsibility. In the Proclamation that he issued setting up this new Government, he made no reference to the Praja Sabha, but called upon this new Government, as soon as peace had been restored, to convoke a National Assembly which should proceed to frame a Constitution of the State. At present, the old Praja Sabha is dead; the new National Assembly has not come into existence, because if conditions not having settled down to that level of peace and tranquillity, and also of economic and political equilibrium which alone can justify the convoking of the National Assembly.
In these circumstances, we have to choose a method by which we could get representatives into this Assembly taking the present facts into consideration. I take it honourable Member will concede that it is very important that Kashmir, which is now a part of India, should be represented in this Assembly. I wish that representation had been brought about much earlier then now; but various things have conspired to prevent that, but we are today in a position to bring to this House four persons who could be said to be fairly representatives of the population of Kashmir. The point that I wish to urge is that, while tow of these representatives would in any case under the present rules be persons who could be nominated by the Ruler, we are suggesting that all the four persons should be nominated by the Ruler on the advice of his Prime Minister. The Prime Minister happens to represent the largest political party in the State. Apart from that, we have got to remember that the Prime Minister and his Government are not based upon the Praja Sabha which is dead, but based rather upon the fact that they represent the largest political party in the State. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the head of this Party who is also the Prime Minister should have the privilege of advising the Ruler as to who would be the proper representative of Kashmir in the Constituent Assembly. That is why we have made this suggestion. Under the circumstances, that is about the best that could be done. It would produce a certain amount of intimate relationship between this Constituent Assembly and the Government and people of Kashmir. Those representatives would come here and take part in the further proceedings of this House. As honourable Members are aware, most of the articles relating to the provinces and States are yet to come up for consideration and it is only right that Kashmir should have the opportunity to participate in the discussions which will finalise those articles.
I do not wish to say much more now. However, one small point I should like to clear up in view of one of the amendments of which notice has been given. It has been suggested that instead of Kashmir, we should substitute Jammu and Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir no doubt describes the State better. But the reason why in this particular motion I have used the word Kashmir is that that word has been used in all statutory enactments and rules that have so far been framed in which this particular State has had to be mentioned.

Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra (West Bengal: General): I would like to know Sir, if the word ” Kashmir” includes or means both Jammu and Kashmir?

The Honourable Shri, N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: Kashmir means Jammu and Kashmir. In the Government of India Act, for instance, if you will look at the Schedule giving the names of the States, it will be found that this State is described as Kashmir. in the Draft Constitution, the Schedule mentions the State as Kashmir. In the list that is attached to the Constituent Assembly Rules, it is already described as Kashmir. So I think it would be best in these circumstances to use only the word ” Kashmir” and both the amendment and the word that I have used mean exactly the same thing. I would therefore, request honourable Members to let this description of the State as Kashmir stand, because if you change it, we shall have to change other things which are already in our Statues and Rules.

Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra: May I interrupt the honourable Member? The motion contemplates that four seats will be allotted to Kashmir and that they will be returned to this Constituent Assembly. The honourable Member explained just now that the word “Kashmir” means, as in all other Statutes and Acts, Jammu and Kashmir. It is contemplated to have four representatives. I want to know whether it is contemplated to have these representative in such a way that Jammu and Ladakh are also represented by these nominees?

The Honourable Shri N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar: “Kashmir” in this motion means the whole of Jammu and Kashmir, the sovereignty over the whole of which still remains with the Government of that State. The idea is that four persons should be chosen who can be trusted to represent the interests of the whole State, not only Jammu and Ladakh, but I believe a person who can represent the interests of even the Mirpur-Jammu area– if the Prime Minister chooses to nominate him as being a person who can represent the interests of the State as a whole–it would not bar such a person being recommended by him. So really what we are contemplating to do is this. We do not recognise anything that might have happened as a result of the military operations which have recently been suspended. But what we really want is to bring into the Assembly persons who will represent the State as a whole. And the Prime Minister, the person who represents the Government as also the largest political party, he is in our opinion, the best person to make recommendations the Ruler who will nominate on such recommendation. Sir, at this stage, I do not wish to sat anything more. I move.

Prof. K. T. Shah (Bihar: General): Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move:
“That in the proposed paragraph 4-A, the word ‘all’ be deleted.”
“That in the proposed paragraph 4-A, before the word ‘Kashmir’ wherever it occurs, the words ‘Jammu and, be inserted,”
“That in the proposed paragraph 4-A, for the words ‘may be’ where they occur for the first time, the words ‘may’ pending the holding of a plebiscite, under the auspices of the United Nations’ Organisation, and without prejudice to the result of that plebiscite, be’ be substituted.”
“That in the proposed paragraph 4-A, for the words ‘by nomination’ the words ‘by election by the Praja Sabha of the State of Jammu and Kashmir’ be substituted.”
“That in the proposed paragraph 4-A, for the words ‘nominated’ the word ‘elected’ be substituted.”
“That in the proposed paragraph 4-A, for the words ‘by the Ruler of the Kashmir on the advice of his Prime Minister’ be deleted.”
Mr. President, Sir, I am fully conscious of the seriousness and delicacy of the task I have taken upon myself in…..

Pandit Balkrishna Sharma: May I request the honourable Mover of the amendment to read out to the House how the motion would read, after his amendments?

Prof. K. T. Shah: Yes, it will read thus:
Notwithstanding anything in para. 4, the seats in the Assembly allotted to the State of Jammu and Kashmir may, pending the holding of a plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations’ Organisation, and without prejudice to the results of that plebiscite, be filled by election by the Praja Sabha of Jammu and Kashmir and the representatives of the State to be chosen to fill such seats may be elected.”
I was saying Sir, that no one can be more aware of the seriousness and delicacy of the task I have taken upon myself in tabling this amendment, and in advancing arguments that I have to place before this House to convert it to my view-point. Being so aware of the gravity of this task and its delicateness, I assure, you, Sir, that I shall not use a single phrase or expression, nor gesture, nor tone which would, in any way in the least import passion or prejudice in the arguments. I am aware that this subject is coloured very deeply by lone-standing prejudice. I am aware, Sir, that there will be deep feeling on the matter, and therefore, so far as it lies in me, I assure you again, Sir, that I shall not use a single expression, nor one gesture which might give rise to any feeling unbecoming this House and unwarranted by the seriousness of the case.
Before I proceed to develop my arguments, Sir, may I in all humility, place before this House something like my credentials to speak on this subject.
Sir, I have been acquainted with Kashmir State and its governance for now something like fifteen or more years. I have known the principal parties concerned in this matter by first-hand knowledge and working with them. I have helped–in however small a way it may be,–to shape what is called the ‘new Kashmir’ from the day that it was in draft form, then the present Prime Minister was good enough to come down to Bombay and consult me on the matter for fifteen days. I had also the honour to be invited to be a Planning Adviser to the preceding Government of Kashmir, in connection with which I had to visit Kashmir State, study the situation and know its people, know its administration, from not merely the superficial tourist’s stand-point, but from the stand-point of a close student of affairs. A bookworm as I may be, I had some opportunity to know these first hand.
I have, perhaps to my own misfortune, been associated with this matter even after the developments of the last few years; and in the course of this argument, I shall try and place before you, Sir, certain considerations which I trust will show you, that if I say anything on the subject I am not saying it from merely superficial newspaper headline knowledge of the matter, but from some close study, close observation and personal knowledge of the subject with which we are dealing.
Sir, after this Preface let me now proceed to the amendment that I have suggested. I have, Sir, in the first place, suggested, that the word “all” be omitted. After all the definite article would remain; and that would include all, even without our using that expression. It, is however, not a merely drafting change that I am suggesting. There is, as you will perhaps see when I go on with the further development of my theme, three is some significance attached to the idea that the word “all” at any rate be omitted.
Sir, I have next suggested that the nomenclature be changed, and the State be described more correctly as the “State of Jammu and Kashmir.”
That is the official title of the State; and in an official document like this I do not see any reason why we should not give the correct description, the proper title of the State. It is once more, I assure you, Sir, not a mere matter of terminology, or nomenclature, or mere verbal emendation. As I shall show you, there is some significance in this matter, which makes it more then ever necessary that you should not omit the other part, and, it one may say so, the first part of the title of that ancient State.
By calling it the State of Kashmir only you are perpetrating or perpetuating an error, which according to the honourable the Mover, has apparently happened in all our documents. May I ask, Sir, if we have made a mistake in the first instance of we have been carried away by the importance of one section of the State, by the importance of the personages connected with that part of the State, is that any reason why we should forget the other and no less important part of the State, and in this formal document continue to perpetuate that mistake, and speak only of ” Kashmir”, when we really mean ” Jammu and Kashmir”?
It is admitted, Sir, it is common knowledge, it is a fact not denied by the honourable the Mover of this resolution, that that is the correct name of the State. And those at any rate who remember the campaign of the present Prime Minister of the State in connection with ‘Quit Kashmir’ will realise that in the sequence of events that have happened, it is liable, if you describe it in this manner, to be gravely misunderstood wherever such nomenclature is allowed to be used; and our public records will be disfigured to that extent.
Sir, as you will see later on here is a matter which is not, as my honourable Friend Mr. Kamath suggested, merely a matter of verbal change, There is a significance attached to it which I hope this House will realise as we go on. The State of Jammu and Kashmir is correctly described as Jammu and Kashmir because, so to say, there are two States in one Kingdom, just as Scotland and England were two States under the First of the Stuarts. The King was King James the Sixth of Scotland and King James the First of England. There were two ‘Crowns worn by one person. In regard to the State of Jammu and Kashmir until about the communal rising of 1933, it was for all practical administrative purposes actually divided into two provinces more or less distinct, though under the same Ruler.
I trust I have said enough to demonstrate to the House that the matter o nomenclature in not merely a matter of verbal emendation; that it has behind it a significance, a significance, in the sequence of events, not confined only to this House or to this country. It has repercussions outside this country, as I will try to show later on; and, therefore, we must be very careful in every word that we use, so that our expression, our nomenclature, our whole wording is in conformity with the situation and the correct facts.
Next, Sir, I come to a very difficult and delicate matter, namely the suggestion that the election be, pending the holding of a plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations Organisation and without prejudice………

Dr. B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya (Madras: General): I wish to raise a point o order, Sir, at this stage. The reference to the plebiscite and to the United Nations Organisation has nothing whatever to do with the representation proposed to be given to the Kashmir State in this motion. I think this amendment should be ruled out of order.

Mr. President: What has the honourable Member to say on the point of order?

Prof. K. T. Shah: It has been the declaration of the highest authority in India also that the accession of the State made by the Maharaja, who was the complete constitutional head on the day that that accession was agreed to, was subject to confirmation by the result of the plebiscite.

The Honourable Shri Jawaharlal Nehru (United Provinces: General): That is absolutely incorrect– cent per cent incorrect. I am amazed, surprised and astounded that such a statement is made by Professor Shah.

Prof. K. T. Shah: If I am wrong I am open to correction. We ourselves have accepted the United Nations decision to hold this plebiscite and an Administrator has been appointed. If I am in your hands.

Mr. President: The point is whether the accession was conditional. The accession, so far as I understand from the Prime Minister was unconditional and complete. The result of that accession may be altered as a result of the plebiscite, but the accession as such was complete and final. Therefore the question of the accession does not arise.

Prof. K. T. Shah: I am not for a moment suggesting that the representatives of Jammu and Kashmir should not come here; nothing of the kind.

Pandit Balkrishna Sharma: The point of order that has been raised by Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya seems to by very pertinent, inasmuch as this resolution is the Constituent of the act of accession which the Government of India and the Constituent Assembly have accepted; and, therefore it is only in relation to that that we are here making provision for the representatives of Jammu and Kashmir to sit in our Assembly. It has absolutely nothing to do with the plebiscite. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, the accession was complete and without any reservation on the part of the Maharaja. That the result of the accession may probably be upset by plebiscite has nothing whatever to do with the proposition we are considering now.

The Honourable Shri Ghanshyam Singh Gupta (C. P. & Berar: General): I entirely agree that this part of the amendment is out of order. We have to see whether it has any bearing on the proposition. If it has no bearing on the main proposition the amendment must be ruled out of order. From the information that has been given by the Honourable the Prime Minister and from the information that you, Sir, were pleased to convey, it is clear that the accession of Kashmir was unconditional. Now when the accession was unconditional, the question of plebiscite has no bearing. The main proposition says that the seats in the Assembly allotted to the State of Kashmir shall be filled by nomination and the representative of the State to be chosen to fill such seats may be nominated by the Ruler. It place no time-limit; it places no condition. Such a condition cannot be placed because the accession was unconditional as we were just informed. By presuming a thing which is not in existence and which is not warranted by facts now brought to the notice of the House, I humbly submit that this amendment is surely out of order.

Mr. President: I am inclined to agree that the point raised by Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya is a solid and valid one. The accession of Kashmir was unconditional and what we are concerned with here is the representation of that State in this Assembly. When the plebiscite will take place and what the result of the plebiscite will be, we are not concerned with here. We are only concerned with the representation of the State in this House. The method suggested has found favour with the Mover. The honourable Member may move his amendment with regard to the method, but he cannot put down any condition with regard to the status of the Member who will be returned to this House. Those members will sit as any other Members without any condition being attached to their status or tenure. So that part of the amendment is ruled out of order.

Prof. K. T. Shah: I bow to your ruling, Sir, and therefore shall confine myself to the other part of the amendment, which naturally would suffer as much as it was an integral part of my argument. I shall nevertheless my and make the argument as much self-contained as I possibly can, notwithstanding the lopping off of a very integral part of my amendment.
The next amendment, Sir, suggests that the representatives be elected by the Praja Sabha of Jammu and Kashmir. Sir, it is an admitted fact that representation of the States is secured as the honourable Mover himself was pleased to declare, partly by election and partly by nomination by the Ruler. Moreover we have allowed nineteen months or more to elapse between the date of the accession and the present suggestion that the representatives may be chosen. I am aware, Sir, that there have been circumstances, there have been developments which have made if difficult, if not impossible, to secure the representation of Kashmir in this Assembly.
Wherever there were popular legislatures, they were allowed to elect half the number of representatives, the other half being nominated by the Ruler. Why should that salutary principle be departed from in this case? As the honourable the Mover himself said the Praja Sabha of Kashmir was elected in 1946-47 and, therefore, it is still within its normal life.

Sri R. K. Sidhva (C. P & Berar: General): Does it exit? What is its strength?

Prof. K. T. Shah: It may be that not all the members may be within the jurisdiction where the King’s writ runs. That, however, does not upset the technical position that the legislative body of Jammu and Kashmir exists, and that body has a right, according to the precedent which we have followed in these matters in the past, to elect at least half the number of representatives. I do not know why a departure should be made in the case of Kashmir alone. Now in the original motion, the whole of the representatives of Kashmir are required to be nominated and that too nominated on the advice of the Prime Minister. We have taken it for granted that that Government or that authority represents the majority of the Kashmir population. That would have been of course evident had any new elections taken place. But circumstances have changed and the Nationalist party has come to power. The fact must be remembered by the House that the population of Kashmir and Jammu, put together, is something like 76 per cent Muslims and 24 per cent Hindus, including Dogras and other non-Muslims. It is for the House in its wisdom to decide whether, given this composition of the population given this course of events that have happened in the meanwhile, whether it is possible that the election could take place on a fair basis even while the frontier itself is in danger; and even while, though the ‘ cease-fire” has been declared, truce has not yet been signed and peace has not yet returned to the State. The danger to Kashmir, or rather the danger to India from any untoward happening in Kashmir is left more to the imagination of the House then any words of mine can describe.
While I am unwilling at this moment to complicate the issues in this manner, I should explain to the House the gravity of the consequences that may occur. I am bound to place before this House this question that if we depart from the practice of election, partly of election and partly of nomination by the ruler at his own will and not as is here required wholly by the ruler, on the advice of his Prime Minister, it is a matter for the House to say.
I realise, and I am prepared to say frankly to the House, that my amendment suggests not the same practice as was followed in the past with regard to the other States. I have been driven to suggest that is should be wholly election because of the extraordinary circumstances of the situation. Had the situation been in the State as normal and peaceful as in other cases, had the situation been uncomplicated by any third party intrusion in the matter, I would have certainly followed the same precedent; and required that at least part of the representatives in a proper form. But as the situation is there today, with all the complications that have arisen, all the representatives of the people must be elected. That is my submission. I am not asking too much when I say that we shall not be departing from democratic principles, or idea or justice, or prudence or wisdom in this matter if we say that the people of Kashmir, and the people of Kashmir alone, shall elect all the representatives to this House. If this party claims to represent the entire or at least a large majority of the people of Kashmir, then there is no reason to fear that they cannot send their representatives according to their wishes. They need not, therefore, shirk the suggestion I am making of calling upon the representatives to be elected and not nominated.
In this matter I am constrained to point but that the developments all along in the history of Jammu and Kashmir in the last three and a half years should not be overlooked. You must not overlook the agitation that was started in February 1946 whereby a responsible party or the leader or the responsible party had started a campaign of ‘Quit Kashmir’ and in consequence thereof events developed and created all the difficulties that have since ensued. I do not like this House to be a party to anything that might look as if it was a surrender to one man’s wishes, that nothing can be done until the Maharaja is removed or complete power is handed over to him. Whether or not he holds the complete confidence of all the people of Kashmir has yet to be proved. I am aware that he may have a large following; but at the same time, it you want proof beyond the possibility of doubt, there is no reason why you should not send invitation for an election even under the limited franchise that is prevailing. If you have adult franchise that would be better. But even under the limited franchise of 1946, if you hold an election you will get the true representatives of the people.
You must also not forget that have happened have invested the other countries and the sister Dominion and those outside with interest in the matter. That being so they will not take any decision unilaterally made by us, without demur. If you want to have peace restored, if you want to live in peace with your neighbours, you should not give needless occasion for them to say that here you are pursuing a design and committing an act and taking steps whereby your own declarations, and, what is more, whether interests the others may have, are being jeopardised. If that is going to be a slur on the good name of this country, and its claim to stand always for the people or for those who are oppressed, then I think it is not too much to demand the should be the true reflex of the people of Kashmir in all that they may be pleaded to say in this House as regards the interest of that State whenever that portion of the Constitution is reached.

Mr. President: Your amendment is that there should be a fresh election and that the Sabha should elect the representatives.

Prof. K. T. Shah: I only say that they should be elected.

Mr. President: You also say that the Sabha should send representatives. If so, how does the question of general election arise?

Prof. K. T. Shah: I say that they should be elected by the Sabha.

Mr. President: If it is the rump of the Sabha, what is the change?

Prof. K. T. Shah: I suggest that it would be better is they were elected by adult franchise. But that is not to be. If you want to get the true reflex of the popular opinion in Kashmir, then you should have that through the Praja Sabha which is the legislature of the State though it may be every unpleasant for us to do so.
Sir, in this connection I feel it my duty to place before the House one or two considerations. We only recorded last week the ratification of our closer association with the British Commonwealth. And if we now complete this act, the two events together carry their own significance.
Secondly I would like the people in this House to realise that the position of Kashmir as it is……….

Pandit Balkrishna Sharma: May I know from the honourable Mover of the amendment then the elections to the Sabha took place?

Prof. K. T. Shah: In November or December 1946.

Pandit Balkrishna Sharma: Was there snowfall in Kashmir at that time?

Prof. K. T. Shah: I do not know that. The elections are held in winter.

Pandit Balkrishna Sharma: The present Prime Minister was then in prison.

Prof. K. T. Shah: He was not the Prime Minister then. He was in prison.

Pandit Balkrishna Sharma: Where are the present members of the Sabha?

Prof. K. T. Shah: I do not know that. You must ask the post-office in Kashmir.

Shri R. K. Sidhva: Does the honourable Member know whether the Praja Sabha exists now, where it exists, what its strength is, where the members are?

Prof. K. T. Shah: The Praja Sabha should know the addresses of its members. Whether the members can collect together or not I do not know. The members may be available or may not be available. As least a quorum may be available to constitute a meeting of the Praja Sabha, if you want to consult the Praja Sabha, if you want to know the opinion of the people of Kashmir. If you do not want, then this motion may be passed.

Pandit Balkrishna Sharma: Is the honourable Member aware that some or most of the members of the Praja Sabha have gone over to Pakistan and those that remain are working for Pakistan? Is he aware of it?

Prof. K. T. Shah: I am not aware. Some have gone.

Mr. President: It will save time if there is no interruption.

Prof. K. T. Shah: I thought I should answer questions put by honourable Members, but I will ignore questions in future.
Two or there more points I would like to place before the House. First, I would like the House to remember the composition of the population of Kashmir, its geographical position, its connection and the possibilities that may happen there. I think the House is aware that we have spent so far something like one hundred crores on Kashmir. What are we getting in return? We have spent–I do not know–how many lives in Kashmir. We are still not out of the wood to the extent that normal conditions, and perfect peace have been restored and normal constitutional progress may be resumed.

The Honourable Shri Jawaharlal Nehru: I strongly protest against the remarks made by the honourable Member. Here we are not discussing the future of Kashmir.

Mr. President: We are discussing only the resolution. The honourable Member is not justified in making remarks on subjects which are not covered by the resolution.

Prof. K. T. Shah: I submit, Sir, that I would not go into those questions. I will not make even those remarks. I will only conclude by saying that this is a very serious matter. The House must bear in mind….

An Honourable Member: What do you mean by serious?

Prof. K. T. Shah: I cannot tell you what is serious, how it is serious.

Shri Jaspat Roy Kapoor (United Provinces: General): The serious thing is that the honourable Member is so ignorant about Kashmir that he even does not know who and where the members of the Praja Sabha are.

Prof. K. T. Shah: The mater is of sufficient importance for the House to take all the aspects of it into consideration and then come to a decision on it Sir, I move.

Mr. President: Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena.

Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena(United Provinces: General): I am not moving my amendment, Sir.

Mr. President: We may now take up the discussion of the motion and the amendments.

Shri H. V. Kamath: Mr. President, Sir, there can be no two opinions in this House that we are all jubilant that very shortly representatives from want is in the words of our Prime Minister the Lovely land of Kashmir, the beauty of which persists in the midst of much spoliation and desecration, will take their seats in this august House. The importance of the subject that we are discussing today cannot be over-estimated. My Friend, Professor Shah, first moved his amendment seeking to substitute. “Jammu and Kashmir” for “Kashmir”. May I point out to him that after what was said about this matter by the Honourable Shri Gopalaswami Ayyangar, the amendment reduces itself to merely one of a drafting character. The Honourable Shri Gopalaswami Ayyangar assured us that though the word “Kashmir” only was used, what was meant was the whole State. If Professor Shah takes the trouble of turning to Part III of the First Schedule of the Draft Constitution, he will find that this State is referred to as merely Kashmir. After this, there is no scope, there is no justification for the amendment moved by Professor Shah. To my mind, some points arise in connection with the motion moved by the Honourable Shri Gopalaswami Ayyangar and I would request that in his reply he may kindly throw some light on them. Firstly, we have not been told–at any rate I did not hear–how many members or representatives from this State will be nominated by the Ruler on the advice of the Premier to take their seats in this House.
 
Shri H. V. Kamath: The last point is this. In yesterday’s issue of an important Daily of this city, there was a report that the Maharaja of Kashmir was going on a short holiday and somebody else would act as Regent. I hope, Sir, that this resolution which we are going to pass today will be implemented by the Ruler of Kashmir on the advice of his Prime Minister before he leaves the State on a short holiday.
Lastly, I would have been happy if the person referred to as the Prime Minister here has been designated otherwise. There is only on Prime Minister in India. I am told there was a recent circular issued to all provinces–I do either as Chief Ministers or as Premiers and that the title Prime Minister should be reserved only for the Prime Minister of the Indian Union. Therefore, I would have been happy if the Honourable Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, who moved this motion, had used the term ” Premier” in place of Prime Minister”, because I feel that it conflicts with the circular issued by the Government of India to all the provinces quite lately.
These are the points which I hope the mover of the motion would clarify in his reply to the debate. i hope we will be able to welcome our friends from Kashmir in this House at a very early date.

Maulana Hasrat Mohani: Sir, I am not opposing this motion of Mr. Ayyangar on the ground that it wants the Kashmir representatives to be nominated, nor on the ground that some of my honourable Friends have tabled amendments, some wanting that 50 per cent should be elected and 50 per cent nominated. I do not care whether cent per cent. are elected or nominated. But what I object to is this. I do not know, of course; but I do not see any necessity for sending any Kashmir representatives to this Constituent Assembly at this stage. Pandit Nehru got angry because he says that this accession has been complete and there is no doubt about that. He says that Kashmir has acceded to India and therefore they have every right to ask for their representatives to be sent hare to this Constituent Assembly. While I need not quarrel on that subject, I have to ask a question from my Friend, Mr. Ayyangar. I accept this contention of the Prime Minister that this accession has been complete although I am doubtful whether he is absolutely right in this. Because, he himself not once or twice, but many times, has said that this accession depends on the final decision of the plebiscite, of the votes of the Kashmir people. Of course, now, he has made up his mind; he has created difficulties and his move is that this plebiscite will never take place and therefore he says that this accession is complete and there is no doubt about it. Even admitting that, I ask Mr. Gopalaswami Ayyangar why he should anticipate the decision of the Government of India and why should he come forward at this stage to propose this thing. I say, why at this stage. Because, generally we find that in all those States which have acceded to India, invariably the Rulers of those States, have been pensioned off and the administration has been taken over by the Indian Government or some provincial Government of India. I do not know what is in the mind of the Prime Minister or the Government of India, as to what will be that status of the Kashmir Government. After accession, will be also be pensioned off and the administration of Kashmir taken over by the Government of India? Is that so? Then, I say that this thing has not yet been decided and if this has not yet been decided, then, I think that there is no status for the Maharaja of Kashmir for the present and therefore this question of his nominating representatives for the Constituent Assembly does not arise. I say that the whole thing is premature. Unless and until you decide the status of the Kashmir Government and the status of the Maharaja, it is hopelessly absurd to set down any proposal of this kind. It is on this ground that I totally object to this motion. I think he should not be allowed to move such a motion at this stage.

Constituent Assembly Debates – State of Kashmir or State of Jammu and Kashmir?

Seriously, I don’t get what Nehru thinks some times.

Nehru’s attempts to replace the name of Jammu and Kashmir to Kashmir, even after knowing that Kashmir is a piece of real estate bought by the king of Jammu. And the way Sheik Abdullah was preferred – ashamed. He was made the leader because he ruled the roads, not because he has the majority in Praja Sabha. No wonder Kashmir is still burning today. Gopalaswami Aiyangar, forwarding the changes, says,

Now, this Assembly has not been in existence since then. It exists perhaps on paper; but it is dead. In October 1947 accession took place. Soon after that took place, the Maharaja set up an emergency administration the head of which was Sheikh Mohammed Abdulla, the leader of the most popular party in Kashmir. In March 1948, he substituted for this emergency administration what he called a popular interim Government, consisting of a Council of Ministers.

And the Prime Minister, the person who represents the Government as also the largest political party, he is in our opinion, the best person to make recommendations the Ruler who will nominate on such recommendation.

And Prof K T Shah’s counter

You must not overlook the agitation that was started in February 1946 whereby a responsible party or the leader or the responsible party had started a campaign of ‘Quit Kashmir’ and in consequence thereof events developed and created all the difficulties that have since ensued. I do not like this House to be a party to anything that might look as if it was a surrender to one man’s wishes, that nothing can be done until the Maharaja is removed or complete power is handed over to him. Whether or not he holds the complete confidence of all the people of Kashmir has yet to be proved. I am aware that he may have a large following; but at the same time, it you want proof beyond the possibility of doubt, there is no reason why you should not send invitation for an election even under the limited franchise that is prevailing.

Then, we see a diatribe from Nehru castigating the Praja Sabha. But, he doesn’t answer the primary question – is the leader of the mobs who rule the streets the real representative of people? I seriously don’t understand what he is thinking. On one side, he flays the Praja Sabha and on the other side, he says many of those who came here, came from such flawed Sabhas. So, what exactly is the problem with Kashmir? Is it that Sheik Abdullah will be shown his place? It looks like his preference is Kashmir, with the concession Kashmir and Jammu. Wonder why is he that bent on promoting Kashmiri identity over the historic realities…If he claims to be a Kashmiri, it makes him partial and his views invalid, actually.

in a sense, I belong to Kashmir more particularly than to any part of India. I have been connected with the fight for freedom in Kashmir and I know about the various groups, various people, various individuals from the Maharaja down to number folk there. And so, if I venture to say anything in this House, I do so with far greater authority than Prof. Shah can presume to have on the subject. I speak not as the Prime Minister, but as a Kashmiri and an Indian who has been connected with these matter. It amazed me to hear Prof. Shah propose that the so-called Praja Sabha of Kashmir should send representatives to this House. If Prof. Shah knows anything about Kashmir, he should know that there is nothing more bogus than the Praja Sabha in Kashmir. He ought to know that the whole circumstances under which the last elections were held were fantastic and farcical. He ought to know that it was boycotted by all decent people in Kashmir. It was held in the depth of winter, to avoid people going to the polling booths.

I admit that it is not desirable for any Members of this House to come by nomination or be selected by some narrow process; but unfortunately many of us here, from the States I means, have not come exactly as we should have liked them to come. They have been sent, partly by nomination, partly by election, by election again, by bodies which are not often properly constituted;