Subhas Chandra Pattanayak
Kashmir is in controversy since its King signed the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947 with India.
The never-to-set polestar for the anti-socialism political practitioners of India, late C. Rajgopalachari had argued in 1970s, with eyes on this controversy, that, if the people of this State are really averse to stay in India, that should be determined and if majority of them decides not to stay in India, the said State should be jettisoned in order to save the rest of the country from continuous war climate. He had insisted that the Kashmir issue should be settled through a plebiscite. “Let us do all we can to get an international authority to watch over the plebiscite”, he had said (Swarajya, Madras, August 14, 1971). To end the war climate with Pakistan, he had justified his demand for plebiscite on whether Kashmir should stay with India or be handed over to Pakistan or be made an Independent nation, with the following words: “We should dispose of this Kashmir issue finally, so that the one great impediment to the development of peaceful relations between Pakistan and India may be removed and the economy of both the countries may have a chance of being saved” (Ibid, September 25,1971).
It should have been proper for the then Indian leadership to subject Rajaji’s plea for consideration by the Parliament, because he was an Indian of the highest stature, whom Gandhiji had pointed out as his conscience-keeper and who was the nation’s natural choice to take over the office of the Governor General of India from Lord Mountbatten immediately after independence. He was the first Indian Head of free India. He had founded the Swatantra Party to oppose India’s march towards socialism. So, his argument was not an argument of a layman. The Parliament should have been invoked to consider his proposal for a plebiscite on Kashmir’s desired status. Then once for all, the entire problem could have been solved. It did not happen.
The people of that State have been given the environment to assume that they belong to a different nationality. Fellows that have governed India ever since independence have helped them with separate identity in India’s constitution and Laws to suit their claim. Consequently Afzal Gurus or Maqbool Bhatts are being generated. This has been injuring India non-stop and the situation has gone so sore that the country had to suffer the ignominy of witnessing “fascist forces” displaying their photos on their chests and raising slogans in their favor in India’s epitome of academic pride: the JNU.
Before merger, the States under the kings were private properties of the said kings. Their States merged in India and the king of Kashmir also merged his State in India. So, like all other princely States that have merged in India, Kashmir is also a property of India and whosoever resides in this former princely State, is bound to stay a complete citizen of India.
But the non-communists that have ruled over India since independence have helped the very same fellows that refuse to be complete Indians to float the Gurus and Bhatts that act against India in their mission of separation from India. Normalcy with Pakistan has never emerged as the fascists in both the countries need a climate of war so that secret payola from the makers and dealers of war weapons and instruments, as was seen in the days of Vajpayee-Fernandez pact, could come to their coffers.
Kanhaiya Kumar is opposed to such fascists. He does not appear anywhere to be a supporter of the Gurus and the Bhatts. As we have watched in uncut Video of his JNU speech, we find him expressing apprehensions that RSS might have been behind the pro-Guru event to discredit the leftist leadership of JNU students. His claim appears credible, because, disgusted with “fascist” conduct of their own leadership, three of the eminent and conscious leaders of ABVP – BJP’s student front – had to resign after Delhi Police – controlled by the BJP heavyweight, Home Minister Rajnath Singh – instituted the false case against Kanhaiya Kumar.
It would be gainful to go through the relevant portion of a PTI report filed at 11:45pm from New Delhi on February 17, 2016 in this matter.
It says:
Three office-bearers of JNU unit of ABVP on Wednesday resigned from the student wing of the BJP strongly protesting against the Centre’s handling of the raging row at the premier university and “legitimizing” actions of right-wing fascist forces.
Pradeep Narwal, Joint Secretary of JNU unit of ABVP, said he has quit the party. Rahul Yadav, President of ABVP unit of JNU’s School of Social Sciences (SSS) and its Secretary Ankit Hans have also said they have quit.
In a joint statement, the three leaders said have decided to quit ABVP as they have serious differences over the way the NDA government was handling the issue, adding there is a difference between “interrogation and crushing ideology and branding entire Left as anti-national.
They also expressed deep anguish over assault on mediapersons and JNU students and teachers in Patiala House Court complex on Monday as well as attack on JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar in the same court complex on Wednesday, alleging that the government was “legitimizing” the action of right wing fascist forces.
Thus, there can be no doubt that the BJP was trying to falsely implicate the leftist light Kanhaiya Kumar who had defeated the RSS element in the JNU Student Union election.
The BJP government, represented by ASG Tushar Mehta is noted by the Delhi High Court in the judgment on Kanhaiya’s bail petition to have said that on February 9, “shouting of anti-national slogans continued unabated which were opposed/countered by the other group of students by shouting slogans in support of the nation. In this process, the students from both the groups had at many times engaged in verbal as well as physical jostling and heckling” (Para 19).
This helps us infer that, there was a fascist group that was raising anti-national slogans whereas the anti-fascists i.e. the leftist students were “shouting slogans in support of the nation”. The three leaders of ABVP who resigned from ABVP on conscience ground have shown the reason of their resignation. They have said that, they have resigned in protest against their own party government “legitimizing” the action of right wing fascist forces.
Therefore, it is clear that, the Kanhaiya group was strongly opposing the pro-Guru faction of the students who had, in the guise of a poem recitation event, raised anti-national slogans admitted by the prosecution.
The High Court has also noted that Kanhaiya Kumar has explained his position in saying that, his presence on the spot on February 9 was “not to participate in the activities but to control the unpleasant situation that had arisen because of conflict between two factions of the students having different political affiliations” (Para 26).
Yet the Court has said, “Whether the speech dated 11th February, 2016 by the petitioner (Kanhaiya Kumar) contains his original thoughts and faith in the Constitution and nationalist approach, or the speech was to create a safety gear for himself is again something which cannot be examined by this Court at this stage” (Para 32)
Resultantly, even though Kanhaiya Kumar has been granted bail, he is thrown into an interim bail for six months with terms and conditions, of which the scheming “fascists” may take advantage of to further demoralize him.
The six-month life given to the interim bail makes us sure that the justice would be delayed in Kanhaiya’s case, because it tantamount to giving free hand to prosecution for at least six months to play with human rights of Kanhaiya Kumar.
World’s most known axiom is that, justice delayed means justice denied.