KASHMIR IN MY HEART
About Me
- c.l.gadoo
- Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
- Pandit Chaman Lal Gadoo Co-Chairman, JOINT HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Chairman, VIDYA GAURI GADOO RESEARCH CENTRE Email: cl.gadoo@gmail.com Blog: clgadoo.blogspot.com
Friday, August 18, 2023
Chausath Yogini Temple, Mitaoli (M.P)
Chausath Yogini Temple, Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh
Chausath Yogini Temple, Ranipur-Jharial,
Chausath Yogini Temple, Hirapur, Odisha
Tuesday, August 15, 2023
CHAUSATH YOGINI TEMPLE, BHEDAGHAT (M.P)
TRUTH ABOUT ARTICLE 370 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION
The Indian federal polity grew out of two diametrically
divergent processes which underlined the devolution of authority to the
provinces, in what was known as the British India before the independence, and
the integration of the Indian States, which had acceded to India in accordance
with the Instruments of Accession. The Instruments of Accession envisaged the
procedure by virtue of which the Indian States, after the British withdrawal
from India and the lapse of Paramountcy, exercised the right to accede to the
Dominion of India. The federal organization of India was, therefore,
constituted of the erstwhile Indian provinces of the British India and the
Indian States which were liberated from the British tutelage after the British
colonial organization came to its end in 1947.
Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of the Jammu
and Kashmir State, acceded to the Indian Dominion on the terms and conditions
envisaged by the Instrument of Accession which was drawn by the States Ministry
of the Indian Dominion. Hari Singh signed the standard Instrument of Accession,
which the rulers of other acceding States has signed earlier and he bound
himself to the same obligations, which the rulers of the other Indian States
had accepted. There was no condition attached to the accession of the State to
India, which provided for any separate set of constitutional relationships
between Jammu and Kashmir and the Dominion of India. All the acceding States
and Unions of the States, Jammu and Kashmir being no exception, were reserved
the right to convene their own Constituent Assemblies to draw up the constitution
for their respective governments. Indeed, Constituent Assemblies were
instituted in Mysore State and the Surashtra States Union.
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and the
other National Conference leaders were in jail when India won freedom and were
released from imprisonment months after the British had left. After their
release the Conference leaders laid no conditions for the accession of the
State to India which they supported, except that they demanded the transfer of
State power to the people, a process to which the Indian Government was equally
committed. The claims made by several State leaders as well as many national
leaders that National Conference had endorsed the accession of the State to
India on the condition that Jammu and Kashmir would be constituted into a
separate and autonomous political identity on the basis of the Muslim majority
character of its population, is a distortion of history. The Conference leaders
did not lay claim to any immunity from the future Constitution of India, nor
did Nehru or any other Indian leader give any assurance to the ruler of the
State or the Conference leaders, about any special constitutional position,
Jammu and Kashmir would be accorded in the Indian federal organisation.
The Instrument of Accession was
evolved by the Secretary in the State's Ministry of the Government of the
Indian Dominion, V.P. Menon in consultation with the Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten,
and with the approval of the State's Minister, Sardar Patel. The lapse of Paramountcy
had reduced the Princes to mere shadows of the royalty; they were, during the
British rule. The powers they exercised in their States were enforced by the
British authority, and after it was withdrawn, they were left to the mercy of
the State's people, who had all along the liberation struggle of India, committed
themselves to the independence of India from the British rule and unity of the
people in the British India and the Indian States. The States people inhabited
one-third of the Indian Territory and formed one fourth of the population of
India.
Lord Mountbanen as well as V.P. Menon was
interested in the protection of the Princes for their own reasons. They enacted
the long and atrocious drama of the integration of the States, to secure the
Princes, the powers and privileges they had enjoyed under the protection of the
Paramountcy. Menon persuaded Patel to accept the accession of the States on the
basis underlined by Cabinet Mission, thus leaving the Princes in possession of
all the powers of the government, except defense, foreign affairs and communications.
Accordingly, the Princes were invited to accede to the Indian Dominion and
delegate to the Dominion Government, powers in respect of defense, foreign
affairs and communications, leaving the residuary powers for them to
administer. The demonstration effect of the Indian offer to the Princes was so
profound that the State's Minister of Pakistan, Sardar Abdur Nishtar, proposed
to accept the accession of the States on two subjects only i.e. the defense and
foreign affairs, leaving communications as well as state troops, within the
control of the States.
The integration of the States
into viable administrative units proved more difficult than anticipated and the
institution of the Constituent Assemblies in the States was also delayed. In
May 1949, the Premiers of the State's took a stupendous decision in a
Conference at Delhi, in which the Negotiating Committee of the constituent
Assembly participated and entrusted the Constituent Assembly of India, the task
of drawing up the Constitution for the States. The Jammu and Kashmir did not
accept the decision arrived in the Premiers Conference and expressed its
preference to convene a separate Constituent Assembly to draft a separate
constitution for the State. Consequently, a separate meeting was held on 14 May
1949, in Delhi between the representatives of the State Government and the
representatives of the Constituent Assembly in which Sheikh Mohd Abdullah,
Nehru and Patel participated. In the meeting the Conference leaders blankly refused
to accept the inclusion of the State in the constitutional organisation of
India. They told the Indian leaders, in veiled words, that they favoured a
separate constitutional organisation for the State in view of the Muslim
majority character of its population which they feared would be subjected to
the dominance of the Hindu majority in India. They proposed the retention of
the Instrument of Accession as the basis of the constitutional relationship
between the Union and the Jammu and Kashmir, till the Constituent Assembly of
the State evolved a fresh structure of constitutional imperatives to replace
the existing relations.
The Indian leaders did not approve
of the exclusion of the State from the constitutional organisation of India and
emphasized the paramount importance of bringing the States within the scope of
the framework of the rights and legal Safeguards as well as the principles of
State policy, the Constituent Assembly had devised. Nehru, told the Conference
leaders that the safeguards for the rights and the principles of State policy
had been evolved by the Constituent Assembly with great pride and there could
be no reason to deprive the people of the State of the protection, the
Constitution of India envisaged. In words, laiden with considerable emotion, he
stressed that all people of India would be governed by a uniform set of constitutional
postulates and people of any province or any acceding State would not be denied
any rights and safeguards for equality, liberty and freedom, the objective
Resolution adopted by the Constituent Assembly embodied. He readily agreed to
modify the scheme of the federal division of powers, the Constituent Assembly
had evolved, in respect of Jammu and Kashmir and accepted to reserve a wider orbit
of powers, including the residuary powers for the State Government. In the
scheme of the federal division of powers, the Constituent Assembly had evolved
the residuary powers were vested with the federal government.
After protracted negotiations, an
agreement was finally reached between the State leaders and the representatives
of the Constituent Assembly which underlined the inclusion of the State in the
basic structure of the Indian Constitution and the application of the
provisions of the Constitution of India to the State pertaining to the
territorial jurisdiction of the Union of India, Indian citizenship, rights and
related constitutional safeguards, principles of State policy, and the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It was agreed upon that the Constituent
Assembly of the State would be empowered to determine the future of Dogra rule
and specify, with the approval of the President of India any further extension
of the provisions of the Constitution of India to the State. To avoid any fresh
controversy over the agreement, Nehru sent a rejoinder to Abdullah, specifying
clearly the stipulation on which the agreement was reached.
The agreement
was, however, short lived and the Conference leaders resiled from their commitments
after they returned to Srinagar. The issue came to a head when Gopalaswamy
Ayanger draw up the draft constitutional provisions for Jammu and Kashmir and
sent them to the Conference leaders for their approval. The draft provisions
were based upon the stipulations of the agreement reached in the Delhi conference.
After a short spell of silence and close door deliberations, the National
Conference leaders placed the draft provisions before the Working Committee of the
Conference. The Working Committee promptly turned down the draft provisions.
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah sent an alternative draft to Ayangar, which envisaged
the complete exclusion of the State from the constitutional organisation of India.
He proposed that the federal relations between the State and the Union be
determined by the provisions of the Instrument of Accession. The Conference
leaders expressed strong reservations about the application of the fundamental
rights and related constitutional guarantees and the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court to the State, on the ground that the fundamental rights embodied in the
Constitution of India conflicted with the policies of the National Conference,
committed to radical social and economic reforms. Gopalaswamy Ayangar,
labouring under the impression that the Conference leaders would accept his
proposals if he left out the fundamental rights and related guarantees, drew up
a fresh draft, in which reference to the fundamental rights, constitutional guarantees
and the federal judiciary, was altogether omitted. To his utter consternation,
the Conference leaders rejected the modified draft as well. They refused categorically,
to accept the application of any provisions of the Constitution of India to the
State. Ayangar, who had served Maharaja Hari Singh, during the most fateful
years of the history of Kashmir, did not realize the grave consequences of
keeping Jammu and Kashmir out of the scope of the rights and related judicial
safeguards the Constitution of India envisaged for the Indian people. He was unmindful
of the incalculable harm, the fateful change he had made in his proposals,
would do to the minorities in the State.
Ayangar made
fresh efforts to arrive at an agreement with the Conference leaders who refused
to accept any provisions of the Constitution of India, including the provisions
which described the territorial jurisdiction of the Union. The Conference
leaders were invited to Delhi, the Indian capital, for talks and Nehru joined
the parleys. Nehru distrusted the demand of the National Conference leaders for
a separate constitutional organisation of the State which did not form a part
of the Indian republic and he strongly pleaded with the Conference leaders to
abandon their obduracy. He refused to approve of any constitutional
arrangement, which forced the exclusion of the State from the basic structure
of the Constitution of India. The Conference leaders refused to relent and at
one stage they broke off the negotiations and threatened to resign from the
Assembly. They sulked away closing themselves up in the Kashmir House, the old
mansion, built in the Indian capital, by Maharaja Hari Singh.
Nehru and the other Indian leaders were
caught in between the devil and the deep sea. They could ill-afford to estrange
the Conference leaders at a time when the United Nations intervention,
interestingly, invoked by India against the aggression of Pakistan, had put the
India Government on the cross-roads. Without
the support of the Kashmiri speaking Muslims, who formed the main support base
of the National Conference, India had little hope to win the proposed
plebiscite in the State. Nehru was under pressure of the Security Council to
implement the demilitarization of the State to prepare the ground for the
induction of the plebiscite administration into the State. He quietly relented
and sent Ayangar to assure the Conference leaders that the Government of India
would not press them to accept the inclusion of the State into the
constitutional organisation of India.
Gopalaswamy
Ayangar drew up a fresh draft in consultation with Mirza Afzal Beg, a close
associate of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and one among the Conference leaders, who
was not favourably disposed towards the accession of the State to India. The
new proposals envisioned the exclusion of the State from the Indian
constitutional organisation. The revised draft-provisions were incorporated in
Article 306-A, of the draft Constitution of India. A last minute controversy
cropped up between Ayangar and the Conference leaders when the draft Article
306-A, came up for consideration in the Constituent Assembly. The Conference
leaders demanded the inclusion of the provisions in the draft Article 306-A which
recognised the Interim government of the state as a government in perpetuity.
Many prominent members of the Constitueut Assembly pointed to Ayangar the anomalous
situation, the recognition of a government in
perpetuity would create. They advised Ayangar not to accept the position taken
by the Conference representatives. Accordingly, when Ayangar conveyed his
inability to the Conference leaders to incorporate provisions envisaging a
government in perpetuity, they reacted in anger. They again sulked away and did
not join the proceedings of the Assembly till Ayangar had delivered half of his
speech on the draft Article. Inside the Assembly they sat glum and did not
utter a word in support of the draft provisions. Beg had informed Ayangar that
he would move an amendment to the draft provisions. Ayangar watched the
proceedings with concern as any controversy between the Indian Government and the
Conference leaders in the Constituent Assembly, was bound to have a deep impact
on the Indian stand in the United Nations. Nehru was in the United States and
perhaps, he expected the Conference leaders to make spirited statements in the
Indian Constituent Assembly, commending the accession of the State to India as
well as the way Indian Constituent Assembly had accommodated a Muslim majority
State in the Constitutional framework it had evolved for the Princely States.
Beg did not move the amendment. The draft provisions of Article 306-A were
adopted by the Constituent Assembly without any dissent.
Immediately after the
proceedings of the day were over in the Constituent Assembly, Beg wrote to Ayangar
demanding the annulment of the Article 306-A, failing which he threatened to
resign from the Assembly along with the other representatives of the State. Ayangar
was stunned. Nehru was abroad in the United States as he could hardly help to
reverse the decision of the Assembly, he wrote back to Beg plaintively not to
resign and wait for Nehru's return. The Conference representatives did not
resign.
Article 306-A was renumbered Article 370 at
the revision stage. Jammu and Kashmir State was included in the First Schedule
of the Constitution of India which described the territories of India. No other
provision of the Constitution of India was extended to Jammu and Kashmir. An explicit
limitation was placed on the application of the Constitution of India to the
State, except in regard to the provisions of the Seventh Schedule corresponding
to the subjects by the Instrument of Accession to the Indian Dominion. Accordingly,
the power of the Union in respect of Jammu and Kashmir was limited to the
subjects in the Instrument of Accession viz. foreign affairs, defense and
communication.
Article 370 of the Constitution of India envisaged provisions which
stipulated;
(a)
limitations on the application of the Constitution of India to the State,
(b)
the division of powers between the Union and the State,
(c)
extension of the provisions of constitution of India to the State,
(d)
modification and termination of the operation of Article 370, and
(e) the institution of a separate Constituent
Assembly for the State.
The only part of the Constitution
of India which was extended to the State independent of Article 370 was the
First Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which described the territorial
jurisdiction of the Indian Union. Jammu and Kashmir was listed in the First
Schedule and included in the territories of India. As a matter of fact, the
State was included in the First Schedule, in consequence of the Instrument of
Accession executed by the Ruler of the State which accomplished the irrevocable
integration of the State in the Dominion of India. The territorial jurisdiction
of the Indian State was created by the Independence Act of 1947, and
Instruments of Accession executed by the rulers of the erstwhile Princely
States. The Constitution of India described the territories of the Indian
State, constituted by the transfer of power to the Indian Dominion on 15 August
1947 and the accession of the States that followed in due course. The inclusion
of the State in the First-Schedule of the Constitution of India actually placed
it alongside the other Princely States which had acceded to India.
The accession of the States
involved the consent of the States to join either the two Constituent Assemblies
which had been created after the partition was accepted. The Cabinet Mission
underlined the adherence of the States to a United India and their
participation in the Constituent Assembly of India which was convened long
before the partition was envisaged and put into effect. The participation of
the States in the Constituent Assembly of India was a consequence of the
accession of the States. The accession of the States brought about the
irrevocable unification of the Princely States with the State of India,
irrespective of whether they accepted to become a part of any future
constitutional organisation of India. The integration of Jammu and Kashmir into
the State of India was, therefore, brought about by the accession of the State
to India and not by Article 370.
The Constitution
of India did not constitute the State of India. In fact, the Constitution of
India was only
declaratory of the state of India. The Indian State
existed prior to the Constitution of India, and it would not be dissolved if the Constitution of India was abrogated
nor would the Jammu and Kashmir fall apart if Article
370 was rescinded.
Had Article 370 not
been incorporated in the Constitution of India, the Jammu and Kashmir would
have been placed in the constitutional organisation of India in the same manner
in which the other federating States, grouped into Part B States, were placed
in the constitutional organisation of India. The limitation imposed by Article
370 explicitly restricted the application of the Constitution of India to Jammu
and Kashmir Article 370 was by no means an enabling act. There was only one
enabling instrument which the Indian Independence Act created and that was the
Instrument of Accession. The participation of the States in the Constituent
Assembly of India was an inevitable consequence of the accession of the States.
The oft-repeated assertion that Article 370 was an enabling act, was politically
motivated and used by successive State governments to perpetuate the
unrestricted power to rule by decree, vested in them, by Article 370. Evidently,
Article 370 was not in any way connected with the so-called autonomy of the
State. Infact, it placed the State outside the federal structure of India, the
federal division of powers between the Union and the States and the
jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, including its power of judicial review,
which guaranteed the autonomous identity of the States in India. Autonomy for
the Indian States could only be visualized within the Indian federal structure
and not outside the division of powers, it envisaged.
Provisions
were incorporated in Article 370 for convocation of a separate Constituent
Assembly for the purpose of drafting the Constitution of the State. The
stipulations of Article 370, in regard to the Constituent Assembly of the
State, left no doubt about the fact that the Constituent Assembly of the State was
a creature of the Constitution of India and drew its powers from the same
source. Several of the Conference leaders claimed plenary powers for the
Constituent Assembly. The issues they raised were more involved and perhaps
they did not accept that the institution of the Constituent Assemblies in the erstwhile
Princely States followed as a consequence of the accession of the States to the
Indian Dominion.
The claim of
the Conference leaders to plenary powers for the Constituent Assembly, which in
the following years became the bane of a serious controversy between the
National Conference and the Indian Government had a subtle and dangerous
import. Plenary powers would vest in the Constituent Assembly a veto not only
on all constitutional relationships between the Jammu and Kashmir State and the
Union of India, but also on its accession to India.
Article 370
was included in the transitional provisions of the Constitution of India and
was therefore, presumed to be of transitory nature. Indeed provisions were
incorporated in Article 370 by virtue of which the President of India was
empowered to modify or terminate the operation of its provisions by a notification,
provided recommendations to that effect were made by the Constituent Assembly
of the State. The President was empowered to extend the application of the
provisions of the Constitution of India to the State by an order issued by him
in concurrence with the State government. Presumably the temporary provisions,
envisaged by Article 370, were meant to remain in operation only so long as the
Constituent Assembly of the State completed its task. Evidently, the founding
fathers of the Indian Constitution could not have visualized a perpetual
Constituent Assembly for the State.
Dr. Mohan Krishen Teng (Co-Chairman) &
Chaman Lal Gadoo (Co-Chairman)
TRUTH ABOUT ACCESSION OF JAMMU & KASHMIR STATE
The Princely States of India,
including Jammu & Kashmir State, were on the agenda of partition of India
in 1947, is a travesty of history and a part of diplomatic offensive, Pakistan
has launched to mislead the international opinion about its claim to Jammu
& Kashmir. Distortion of the history of the partition of India, false
propaganda and lies, shroud the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India in
1947, as well as the exclusion of the State from the Indian Constitutional
organization by virtue of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution in 1950.
The
Indian political class in its attempt to substitute “greater autonomy” of the
State for the “right of self-determination” that Pakistan and Muslim separatist
forces have been demanding during the last six decades, has undermined the
national consensus on the unity of India and the secular integration of the
people of the State and the people of India on the basis of the general right
to equality.
Today,
the whole nation is confronted with a situation which threatens to disrupt the
unity of the country and endanger its territorial integrity. The people of
India need to stand up as one man to expose the perfidy which has virtually
pushed the State of Jammu and Kashmir to the brink of disaster. Nearly half of
the State is under the occupation of Pakistan. To allow the reorganization of
the other half into a separate sphere of Muslim power, will eventually pave the
way for the disintegration of the civilizational boundaries of the Indian
State.
The
creation of two Dominions of India and Pakistan was restricted to the division
of British India and the separation of the British Indian provinces of Sindh, Baluchistan,
North-west Frontier Province, the Muslim majority contiguous regions of the
province of the Punjab, the Muslim majority eastern region of the province of
Bengal, along with the Muslim majority regions of the Hindu majority province
of Assam. The princely States, which formed an integral part of the British
Indian Empire, were not brought within the scope of the partition plan.
The
Indian Independence Act did not lay down any provisions in respect of the
procedure for the accession of the princely States to the two dominions and the
terms on which the accession would be accomplished. After the 3 June
Declaration of 1947, the States Department of the Government of India was
divided into two sections: the Indian Section which was placed under Sardar
Vallabhai Patel and the Pakistan Section which was placed under Sardar Abdur
Rab Nishtar of the Muslim League. The task of laying down the procedure of the
accession of the States to India was entrusted to the Indian Section and the
task of laying down the procedure for accession of the States to Pakistan was
entrusted to the Pakistan Section. The Indian Section drew up an Instrument of
Accession for the accession of States to India, so did the Pakistan Section for
the accession of States to Pakistan. The Instrument of Accession enshrined the
procedure and the terms in accordance with which the rulers acceded to either
of the two Dominions.
The Instrument of Accession drawn up by the
Indian Section laid down two sets of terms and procedures, one for the larger
princely States and the other for the smaller princely States. It is important
to note here that the States were provided no option, except to accede to India
on the terms and conditions laid down by Indian Section, or to accede to
Pakistan on the terms and conditions laid down by the Pakistan Section of the
Indian States Department. All the larger princely States which acceded to
India, including Jammu and Kashmir, signed the same standard form of the
Instrument of Accession and accepted the terms it enshrined. The Instrument of
Accession enshrined acceptance by the rulers of princely States to unite their
domains with the Dominion of India on terms and conditions and in accordance
with the procedure laid down by it. The princely States were never recognized
by the British as independent entities. They formed a subsidiary structure of
the British colonial organization of India which was subject to the British
Crown. The lapse of Paramountcy did not alter their status. The Instrument of
Accession signed by the rulers of the princely States, including Jammu and
Kashmir, stipulated the unification of the States with the two successor States
of the British Empire in India. The transfer of power in India underlined the
creation of only two successor States of the British Indian Empire: the
Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. The lapse of the Paramountcy
put the States on the inevitable course which led them to accede to either of
the two successor States.
The
rulers located within the geographical boundaries of the Dominion of Pakistan,
acceded to Pakistan. The ruler of Kalat, who was opposed to the accession of
Kalat to the Dominion of Pakistan, was smothered into submission by the Muslim
League with the active support of the British, included Bahawalpur as well. All
other princely States were situated in the geographical boundaries earmarked
for the Dominion of India. The State of Jammu and Kashmir was contiguous with
both India and Pakistan. Its borders stretched along the boundaries of the
Dominion of Pakistan in the West and South-west, while its borders in the East
and South-east rimmed the frontiers of the Dominion of India. The ruler,
Maharaja Hari Singh, harboured no illusions about the accession of his State to
Pakistan and eagerly awaited a clearance from the Congress leaders, who had
secretly advised him not to take any precipitate action in respect of the
accession of his State, till Hyderabad and Junagarh were retrieved. He himself
was aware of the dangers of any wrong step on his part, which he knew would
lead to a chain reaction in the States ruled by the Muslim rulers. He did not
want his State to be used as a pawn by Pakistan.
Pakistan had no special claim to Jammu and
Kashmir on the basis of the Muslim majority composition of its population. As
already mentioned, the Muslim League strongly opposed any suggestion to
recognize the right of the people of the princely States to determine the
future of the States. It was only when Pakistan failed to grab Jammu and
Kashmir after it invaded the State in October 1947, and the Indian military
action frustrated its designs to swallow Hyderabad and Junagarh, both States
located deep inside India, that Pakistan raised the bogey of self-determination
of the Muslims of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of their
numerical majority. The Instrument of Accession was executed by the ruler of
Jammu and Kashmir State on the terms specified by the Dominion of India.
Neither the ruler of the State, Maharaja Hari Singh, nor the National
Conference leaders played any role in the determination of the terms the
Instrument of Accession underlined. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and many National
Conference leaders were in jail when the transfer of power in India was
accomplished by the British. Sheikh Abdullah was released from jail on 29
September 1947, about a month and a half after the British had left India.
Three days after the release of Abdullah,
the Working Committee of the National Conference met under his presidentship
and took the decision to support the accession of the State to India. The
decision of the Working Committee was conveyed to Nehru by Dwarka Nath Kachroo,
the Secretary General of the All India States Peoples’ Conference, who was
invited to attend the Working Committee meeting of the National Conference as
an observer. Kachroo was a Kashmiri Pandit who had steered the movement of the
All India States Peoples’ Conference during the fateful days in 1946-1947, when
partition and the transfer of power in India were on the anvil.
Interestingly,
the National Conference leadership kept the decisions of the Working Committee
a closely guarded secret. Within a few days after the Working Committee
meeting, the National Conference leaders sent secret emissaries to Mohammad Ali
Jinnah and other Muslim League leaders. While Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah held
talks with a number of Muslim League leaders of the Punjab, who had come to
Srinagar after his release, he sent two senior most leaders of the National
Conference, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad and Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq, to Pakistan to
open talks with Muslim League leaders. Jinnah spurned the offer of
reconciliation the National Conference leaders made and refused to meet the
emissaries. Sadiq was still in Pakistan when Pakistan invaded the State during
the early hours of 22 October 1947.
Hari
Singh upturned the whole game-plan of Pakistan. While the invading army spread
across the State, Hari Singh sent his Prime Minister, Mehar Chand Mahajan to
Delhi to seek help to save his State from the invasion and offered accession of
the State with India. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah had already reached Delhi. He
made no secret of the danger the State faced and asked Nehru to lose no time in
accepting the accession and ensuring the speedy dispatch of Indian troops to
the State. The instrument of Accession was taken to Jammu by V.P. Menon, where
it was signed by the Maharaja. Menon then rushed back to Delhi and got the
Instrument accepted by Mountbatten. Next day, the air-borne troops of the
Indian Army reached Srinagar. On November1, 1947, the Gilgit Scouts, a local
Muslim militia raised by the British for the defenses of Gilgit Agency,
revolted and declared the accession of Gilgit Agency to Pakistan. Major Brown,
a British adventurer who commanded the Gilgit Scouts, hoisted the flag of
Pakistan over the Agency. The Governor of Gilgit, Gansara Singh was put into
prison. The State army garrison at Bunji in Askardu, mostly Muslim, followed
the Gilgit Scouts, opening the way for the invading forces of Pakistan, to take
hold of Baltistan.
Hari Singh laid no conditions for the
accession of the State to India. The National Conference leaders were nowhere
in the process of the Accession of the State, to lay down any condition for the
accession of the State to India. The Congress leaders including Nehru made no
promises to the National Conference leaders. The terms of the Instrument of
Accession were not altered in any respect by the Viceroy. Neither, Nehru,
Patel, nor any other Congress leader gave any assurance to the Conference
leaders about autonomy or Special Status of the State. In fact the National
Conference leaders did not make any such demands at any time, while the process
of accession was in progress. The Instrument of Accession was an act performed
by the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir to unite his domains with the State of India.
Mountbatten, in his capacity as last Viceroy and first Governor General of
India, had only one power in this respect: to accept the Instrument of
Accession executed by the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir. His power derived from the Indian Independence Act, which was
strictly limited to his acceptance of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir that
Hari Singh offered. It is important to note that Mountbatten could not refuse
to accept the Accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India, or indeed, of any other
princely state. Hence he did not refuse to accept the accession of Junagarh, which
was accomplished in a political crisis caused by the rebellion of the people of
the State against the ruler. The Nawab of Hyderabad was keen to align his
State to Pakistan against the wishes of his people. Hyderabad lay deep inside
the Indian mainland, south of the Vindhyas; Junagarh was situated in the midst
of Kathiawad States which had acceded to India. The accession of Junagarh to
Pakistan and the insistence of the Nawab of Hyderabad threatened to disrupt the
unity of India and balkanize it. Nehru and Patel pleaded with the Nawab of
Hyderabad to ascertain the wishes of his people in respect of the accession of
his State. Nehru and Mountbatten repeatedly requested the leaders of Pakistan
to agree to refer the accession of Junagarh to Pakistan, to the people of the
State. While Mehar Chand Mahajan was pleading with Nehru to accept the
accession offered by Hari Singh, Junagarh was in a state of civil war and the
Nawab of Hyderabad was secretly plotting with Pakistan the course of action he
would take after Hari Singh had acceded to India. Nehru sought to reinforce his
interests in Hyderabad and Junagarh by repeating the offer of eliciting the
opinion of the people of Jammu and Kashmir in respect of their accession. The
withdrawal of the invading army of Pakistan from territories of the State under
its occupation was the precedent condition, laid down by Mountbatten, Nehru and
the Security Council, for any reference to the people of Jammu and Kashmir,
National Conference leaders
demanded the exclusion of Jammu and Kashmir from the Indian constitutional
organization in the summer of 1949, when the Constituent Assembly of India was
in the midst of framing the Constitution of India. This was the time when
foreign power intervention in Jammu and Kashmir had just begun to have its
effect on the deliberations of the Security Council as well as the developments
in the State. Pakistan refused to withdraw its forces from the occupied
territories of the State. It has so far distorted the discourse regarding the
accession of the State to suit its denial.
The
Instrument of Accession was a political instrument and the accession of Jammu
and Kashmir was a political act, which had international implications as it
formed a part of the process of the creation of the State of India. As such,
the Instrument of Accession executed by Maharaja Hari Singh was irreversible
and irreducible, irrespective of the circumstances and events in which it was
accomplished.
Finally,
the princely states were not required to execute any Instrument of Merger. The
claim made in some quarters in Jammu and Kashmir that the State had not signed
the Instrument of Merger, which such quarters insist, saved Jammu and Kashmir
from being integrated in to the constitutional organization of India, is a
travesty of history. The State Department of India laid down a procedure for
the integration of smaller princely States into administratively more viable
Unions of States. To complete the procedure of this integration, the State
Department drew up an Instrument of Attachment, erroneously described as an
Instrument of Merger. The major Indian States, including Jammu and Kashmir,
were not required to sign the Instrument of Attachment. Moreover, the
Instrument of Accession had no bearing on the integration of the States into
the Indian Constitutional organization.
Dr. Mohan Krishen
Teng (Co-Chairman)
& Chaman Lal Gadoo (Co-Chairman)
Thursday, July 7, 2022
SHARIKA TIRTHA (HARI PARBAT)
CHAKRESHWARI, the abode
of SHARIKA BHAGWATI (HARI PARBAT)
The Kashmiri Pandit
Saptarshi Samvat, since 5098 years consider the days of Ashad Shukla Paksh Saptami, Ashtami and Navami,
the most auspicious and sacred days, as the Sharika Bhagwati, is believed to have made Sharika Tirtha
(Hari Parbat) as Her abode. Ever since the
Puja and Archana takes place regularly at Hari Parbat with great enthusiasm
and devotion. These three days are also
dedicated to Sun God and Kashmiri Pandits seek his blessings too. The ritual is
observed, as first woman of the family would make the Haar Mandul with different kinds of coloured limes, added with
turmeric and powdered dried leaves of the mulberry trees, drawing the seven Chakras. Also the Taher (yellow rice) prepared with all sanctity, is partly offered
to Surya Deva and rest is taken as Prasad
by the family.
Ashad Navami (Har Navum) is the birthday of Sharika Devi known as Sharika
Jayanti. The Sharika Tirtha is the abode of Mahashakti--- Divine Mother Goddess
Durga. The eighteen-armed Goddess Sharika, Ashtadushbuja,
is regarded one of the Isht Devi of
Kashmiri Hindus. In Tantra Shastra, Para-Shakti is known as Triprusundri. The
sacred shrine of Sharika Devi is situated on Hari Parbat hill, in the heart of
Srinagar city and is one of the oldest Shakhta
shrines of Kashmir. Pandit Kalhana, in
Rajatarangni, has described Hari Parbat as “the epicentre of spiritualism in
Kashmir”.
A legend is associated with the Hari Parbat
shrine. A powerful demon, Jalodabhava lived in the waters over the place where
the hill is. The demon harassed and troubled the Rishis. The Rishis prayed to Goddess
Parvati to free them from the demon. The Goddess assumed the form of a bird
called Har in Kashmiri, Myna and dropped a celestial pebble
which she was carrying in her beak, at the spot where Jalodabhava the water
demon was laying. The pebble grew into a hillock, pinning the demon down
forever. The Goddess in grateful memory of deliverance took up Her abode at the
hill-top and is worshiped as Sharika Bhagwati. The hill is called Hari Parbat
--- the hill of Sharika. The legend goes that, the miracle happened on the day
of Ashad Shukla Paksh Navami, known in Kashmiri language as Har Navam. The Hindus of Kashmir
celebrate this day as birthday of Sharika Bhagwati with great reverence and
devotion. Hindus from faraway places join the festivities.
In Chakreshwari shrine, at Hari
Parbat, Sharika is manifest in the form of Chakreshwari, symbolized by Sri Chakram, which is engraved upon the
vertical holy rock, known as Shilla,
located in the middle of the western face of the Chakreshwari shrine. The Shilla is smeared with Sindhoor. The Sri Chakram is a symbolic
representation of the cosmic union of Lord Shiva and Shakti. It is a famous
Yantra.
A verse from ‘Rudra Yamala Tantra’ describes
Sri Chakram as; “The point, the group of 8 triangles, two groups 10 triangles,
the group of 14 triangles, 8 petalled lotus, the 16 petalled lotus, the three
circles and the quadrangular ramparts all round constitute the Sri Chakram of
the Supreme Mother.” In the Yantra (i)
the inner group forming the central dimensionless point (Bindu), the primary
triangle (Trikona) with its apex downwards and the figure of eight corners (Astakona) symbolize bliss, Laya or
absorption, (ii) the middle group forming the figure of ten angles
(Antradasara), another figure of ten angles (Bahirdasara) and the figure of
fourteen angles (Catur-dasara) symbolizes mastery over the worlds, preservation
or Sthiti and (iii) the outer group consisting of the eight petalled lotus (Asta-dala-padma),
the sixteen petalled lotus
(Sodasa-dala-padma) and the square field (Bhupura) symbolize extension or
Srsti.
The shrine of Chakreshwari is also
known as Pradyuman Peeth, Sidh Peeth, Shakti Peeth and Sharika Peeth. Bhagawti
Mantra is of seven ‘Bijakhsharas’ symbolic of Sharika, seven Sages and seven
Lokas. In Tantra Shastra, Udharkosa is a unique Grantha. The first half includes 25 Patalas (paragraphs) and has
been composed in the form of Adhyayas
(chapters) dealing mainly with Bhijamantras of Gods and Goddess. Similarly, the
other half contains 35 Adhyayas (chapters)
which also deals in detail the Bhija-mantras. The Mantra is a verbal
expression, and Yantra or Sri Chakram is visual expression, of Divine Mother.
The devotees who concentrate on the Sri
Chakram, seek awaken their spiritual consciousness, Kundalini Shakti. The
‘Kundalini ‘Yoga is the main theme of the ‘Pancastavi’. Its five Hymns are
descriptive prayers to ‘Tripurasundari’, which is very common with Kashmiri
Pandits.
The
Gita speaks, of Para Prakrti, which is none other than Para-Shakti. The
collective energy of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh is known as Tripura or Sri
Tripursundhari. In Tantra, Shiva and Shakti are not two different entities. It
is Shiva as Shakti. The appearance of both is like the two sides of the same
coin. The dynamic aspect of the highest Reality is Para-Shakti and its static
aspect is Parma-Shiva.
According to the Upanishad, Shiva’s
Para-Shakti is manifold, as described in the Veda, the natural energies of
knowledge, power and action. Jnana, Bala
and Kriya correspond to Jnana Shakti, Iccha Shakti and Kriya Shakti respectively. Tantras
corroborate the Vedic classification of Shaktis. Along with the power of Shiva
to conceal----Pidhana and power of favour---Anugraha,
the Shakti constitute its five-fold expression of Para-Shakti. Para Shakti is
the primeval source, the Supreme Mother, with five glorious natural energies.
Adi Sankaracharya describes in a Shloka of
his Saundarya Lahari, ‘Whereas most Gods bestow the boon of fearlessness on
their devotees by raising their right hand in Abhaya Mudra, Mother Goddess
Durga bestows benedictions from Her Holy Feet.
Those who bow their heads at the feet of Goddess Durga attain their
cherished goal.’
Ksemaraja explains in Bhatta
Narayana, “We bow to Shiva who, enjoining His five-fold glory reveals the
spiritual Shakti, the power of consciousness and bliss.” Para- Shakti is the
original source, the Supreme Mother, with five glorious natural energies.
Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa, has described
Kundalani Shakti in his Gospel as; “The centre at the heart corresponds to the
fourth plane of the Vedas. There is in this centre a lotus called ‘Anahata’ with 12petals. The centre known
as ‘Vishudha’ is the fifth plane.
This centre is at throat and has a lotus with 16 petals. When the ‘Kundalini’
reaches this plane, the devotee longs to talk and hear only about God. A
conversation on worldly subjects, on ‘Kamini’
and ‘Kanchan’, causes him great pain.
He leaves a place where people talk of these matters. Then comes the sixth
plane corresponding to the centre known as ‘Ajna’.
The centre is located between the eyebrows and it has a lotus with two petals.
When the ‘Kundalani reaches it, the aspirant sees the form of God. It is like a
light inside a lantern. You may think you have touched the light but in reality
you cannot because the barrier of the glass. At last of all is the seventh
plane, which according to the ‘Tantra’, is the centre of the 1000 petalled
lotus. When the ‘Kundalini’ arrives there, the aspirant goes into ‘Samadhi’. In
that lotus dwells ‘Sat Chitanand Shiva’ the absolute. The ‘Kundalini’, the
awakened power, unites with ‘Shiva’. This is known as Union of ‘Shiva’ and
Shakti”.
On Navreh, the New Year Day of
Kashmiri Hindus, which falls in the month of Magh and during the days Navratra,
devotees regularly visit the Hari Parbat for special prayers and worship of
Sharika Bhagwati. Some selected verses of ‘Sundaryalahari,’ ‘Pancastavi’ and
‘Durga Saptshati’ dedicated to Divine Mother are recited by devotees at the
shrine.
A number of holy spots and
temples are located on all sides of the Hari Parbat hill. The devotees
undertake Parikrama of the whole of
hillock. The Parikrama would start
from the Mahaganeshas shrine (Ganishon), which is located on the south-western
spur of the hillock. Sri Ganesha is represented by a huge rock, ‘Shila’ smeared with ‘Sindoor’. He is worshipped both in the
form of image and Yantra inside the temple. The ‘Swastika’ is known as graphic symbol of Lord Ganesha.
After prayers at Mahaganesha, devotees move
towards the rock, known as ‘Sapat Rishi’, with which the earliest scientific
calendar devised by Kashmiri Pandits, now 5098 years old is associated, and is
worshipped. Further onto the cluster of
four Chinars known as ‘Lal Ded’s Boni’ and from there, devotees move to a small
temple of Mahakali. In front of the Kali temple is a large chunk of land known
as Sidh Peeth. It is believed that great
saints of Kashmir, Rish Peer, Krishna Kar, Sahib Koul, Madhav Dhar and others
meditated here and attained divinity.
After Sidh- Peeth, next is Devi Angan at the foot of the hill with
Chakreshwari temple at the hilltop. A flight of steps one hundred and eight in number
lead to the Chakreshwari temple. The steps are wide, and made of dressed stone
slabs. Devotees then move towards
Mahalakshmi sthapna. On its left is
Amber Koul temple dedicated to Lord Krishna.
A long trail of about a kilometer
ahead is Pokhri-Bal. It is situated well below the hillock on the banks of
Nagin Lake. Pokhri means spring and Bal as place, --- the place of springs.
The holiest of springs at Pokhribal is known the Amrit Kund. This is a square
shaped clear water spring, surrounded by Chinar trees. An ancient Shiva temple
stands overlooking the holy Kund. The
Amrit Kund is the place where the holy feet of Goddess Sharika are supposed to
rest. The holy water of Amrit Kund is sacred and refreshing to devotees, who
reach there after a long Parikrama of
Hari Parbat. A temple dedicated to Mother Raghnya is a part of Pokhribal
complex, besides number of rest rooms, a community kitchen. Other facilities
are also available for the devotees. Special Puja is offered on certain auspicious days at Pokhribal. On Hura Ashtami, on the eve of Shivratri
devotees cluster around the Amrit Kund and recite Sholakas from the scriptures and sing Bajans collectively throughout the night. Next morning Taher, yellow cooked rice, is
distributed as Prasada.
Before devotees reach the exit gate,
Kathidarwaza, there is a small Hanuman temple at the right side of the
foothill. Hanuman is a very popular
deity. This is the last holy spot on the Parikrama
route.
(Lt. Governor of Jammu and Kashmir hoisted a 100-feet tall national flag
at the Hari Parbat Fort in Srinagar as part of celebrations for the 75th
Independence Day of India)
On the top of the southern spur of the Hari
Parbat hill, the Mughal rulers constructed a fort, which is known as Hari
Parbat fort. Inside the fort there is an ancient temple, which was renovated by
Dogra kings. The temple is located on the upper terrace of Hari Parbat Fort. It
is believed, that the temple enshrined an idol of Sharika Devi. During Muslim
rule, the devotees of the Sharika took it to Sarthal in Doda, in the interior
of Jammu, to save it from desecration, at the hands of Muslims. The deity is
known as Sarthal Devi in Doda now.
(Source---Kashmir Hindu Shrines by Chaman Lal Gadoo)