The Rediff Special / Kanchan Gupta

Farooq, Ajatshatru are defying nation's integrity

As a nation we do not miss any opportunity to berate those who seek to defile or defy the Constitution of India. Indeed, great emphasis, both moral and political, is laid upon the need to not only swear loyalty to the Constitution but also the inviolability of its letter and spirit. The emphasis is all the more when it comes to defining our nationhood, geographical as well as political; we do so by thumping the Constitution of the Republic of India.

Those who question the very identify of the Indian nation by defying the Constitution or violating its tenets, are labelled as 'anti-national.' The less polite resort to a harsher expression, describing the violators as 'secessionists' who are guilty of nothing less than 'treason', an act defined by the OED as 'violation by a subject of allegiance to the sovereign or to the state'. Thousands of men and women were put behind bars under the provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act on the charge that they chose to commit this violation with the help of AK - 47s and bombs. How does one describe a person who is guilty of committing a similar act through the spoken word? And what about an entire government that challenges the inviolability of India's territorial integrity?

Ajatshatru Singh, grandson of Maharaja Hari Singh who signed the Instrument of Accession with the specific purpose of preventing his princely state's forcible and bloody annexation by Pakistan, has dropped a bombshell by announcing that the National Conference government headed by Dr Farooq Abdullah is not only willing to secede territory to Pakistan, but will pass a resolution to this effect, following it up with a referendum.

Dr Abdullah, realising the implications of his tourism minister's utterance, has sought to minimise its impact by claiming that the callow politician has been misquoted. He, however, has failed to offer a convincing clarification as to what exactly did Ajatshatru Singh say.

In a sense, Ajatshatru Singh has merely expanded upon Dr Abdullah's much-repeated view that the Line of Control between India and Pakistan should be recognised as the de jure international border and Islamabad allowed sovereign rights over occupied Kashmir. Dr Abdullah's 'practical and realistic solution' was no 'off-the-cuff remark', as he described it after airing his appalling views at Chhindwara. In any event, any individual who owes allegiance to a state, more so somebody who occupies public office, does not make 'off-the-cuff remarks about the territorial integrity of that state.

For the past three years now Dr Abdullah has been talking about this 'practical and realistic solution'; to that extent, he has been consistent in questioning the inviolability of the nation's territorial integrity. Notwithstanding his contrived contriteness after his Chhindwara statement fetched howls of protest, Dr Abdullah reiterated his seditious 'solution' in a belligerent interview to the Indian Express.There was not even a mild word of censure from the United Front government of which his party is the exalted 14th member.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe that Ajatshatru Singh was misquoted. Ajatshatru Singh, who is politically naive, jumped the gun and spilled the beans when cornered by reporters at Chandigarh's Garden Festival. A seasoned politician would have stuck to the subject at hand -- gardening instruments, plant varieties and the benefits of organic manure.

What, however, is surprising is that both he and his leader, Dr Abdullah, should be unaware of the contents of the opening pages of the Constitution of India, the state to which they owe allegiance by virtue of the fact that they are Indian citizens, as well as the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir to which they swore undying loyalty while being sworn in as ministers. The territorial identity of the nation, as defined by Article 1 of the Constitution of India -- 'India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States' 'specified in the First Schedule' -- includes the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir. This Article is applicable to Jammu and Kashmir, notwithstanding Article 370.

The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir goes further, leaving no doubts whatsoever about the state being an integral part of India and its territorial identity. Defining the 'relationship of the State with the Union of India', Article 3 of Part II says: 'The State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India.' The next Article defines the 'territory of the State'; 'The territory of the State shall comprise all the territories which on the fifteenth day of August, 1947, were under the sovereignty or suzerainty of the Ruler of the State.'

By working towards the secession of that part of Jammu and Kashmir which has been in Pakistan's illegal occupation for the past five decades, Dr Abdullah and his minister are prima facie guilty of violating the sanctity of both the Constitutions. Worse, Ajatshatru Singh, by seconding Dr Abdullah's obnoxious 'practical and realistic solution', has questioned the sovereign and suzerain powers of his grandfather; first it was Dr Karan Singh who virtually helped Sheikh Abdullah to force Maharaja Hari Singh into abdication and now it is Ajatshatru Singh who has questioned the very legitimacy of the former ruler's sovereign powers.

In a sense, this puts a question mark on Maharaja Hari Singh's actions as the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, including the act of his signing the Instrument of Accession which he did on the strength of his sovereign powers that are now sought to be cruelly denied by his own grandson.

Had any other chief minister or one of his colleagues been guilty of questioning the sanctity of the Constitution of India or the inviolability of the nation's territorial integrity, retribution would have been swift and pitiless. Many a state government has been sacked on the assumption that it will fail to 'uphold the Constitution'. Ordinary citizens have been punished, and cruelly though rightly so, for committing a similar crime.

Punjab's fields are stained with the blood of those who sought to violate the nation's territorial integrity; a bloody battle rages in the North-East against those who preach secession; the graveyards of the valley of Kashmir are littered with headstones dedicated to those who challenged the Indian State.

Yet Dr Farooq Abdullah and Ajatshatru Singh have got away scot-free. One reason is that their thinking is shared by many in the United Front government, including the prime minister who is willing to 'make minor adjustments on Jammu and Kashmir' with Pakistan and his foreign minister who is willing to make any adjustments at any price in order to score brownie points with the lib-left both at home and abroad.

Meanwhile, tucked away in some dusty file on some dusty shelf of Parliament lies a piece of paper which contains the lines. 'The State of Jammu and Kashmir has been, is and shall be an integral part of India and any attempts to separate it from the rest of the country will be resisted by all necessary means... Pakistan must vacate the areas of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir, which they have occupied through aggression....'

This piece of paper forgotten by all is the unanimous resolution adopted by Parliament on February 22, 1994.

Kanchan Gupta, formerly a senior journalist at The Pioneer, is now a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party's think-tank

Tell us what you think of this column