Rear view: Difficulty of coming together

Sheikh Abdullah saw it as the best solution to the Kashmir issue, but Field Marshal Ayub Khan didn’t

Written by Inder Malhotra | Published:January 11, 2016 1:00 am
india, pakistan, kashmir, kashmir history, india pakistan history, independent kashmir, jawaharlal nehru, Pakistan President Ayub Khan, Sheikh Abdullah, abdullah ayub kashmir meeting, modi nawaz meeting, india news, latest news, kashmir news, pakistan news, indian express column Former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru along with President Ayub Khan of Pakistan driving through one of the streets of Karachi seen after the arrival of the Indian prime minister at Karachi airport on 19.09.1960. (Source: Express archive)

Just after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s famous and spontaneous visit to Lahore on the birthday of his Pakistani opposite number, Nawaz Sharif, television showcased a Sangh Parivar stalwart’s view that the road to Akhand Bharat was open. One can react to this dangerous delusion whichever way one likes — laugh derisively or weep — but I think it necessary to recall and recount an instructive event in the subcontinent’s history that took place half a century ago. Most of the younger generation is unlikely to be aware of it.

In May 1964, a startling but not provocative idea of a confederation of India, Pakistan and Kashmir was discussed at the highest level. The talks took place between Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah — with Nehru’s full backing — and President Ayub Khan of Pakistan, who welcomed Kashmir’s tallest leader to Rawalpindi. The Sheikh’s view that this was the best solution to the vexed Kashmir issue was discussed by the two leaders at length and, as should have been expected, rejected by Ayub emphatically.

Let the story begin from the beginning. In the last week of December 1963, Kashmir went through unquestionably the worst internal crisis when a holy relic — a single hair of the Prophet’s beard — was stolen from the Hazratbal shrine in Srinagar. There were massive protests across the state. Mercifully, it was soon found and recognised as genuine by religious leaders. Things started simmering down. However, a bigger problem persisted. Sheikh Abdullah, Kashmir’s first “prime minister” and a close friend of Nehru, was still in jail since 1953 when he was dismissed and imprisoned because of his attempt to make Kashmir independent of both India and Pakistan. This weighed heavily on Prime Minister Nehru’s mind. He, therefore, ordered Abdullah’s release, invited him to New Delhi to be his house guest and encouraged him to go to Pakistan to try and settle the Kashmir question with Ayub.

Relations between the two old friends were as cordial as in the distant past, but Nehru was somewhat ill at ease because he found that the Sheikh was fixated on the idea of a confederation. One night, he sent for an important Kashmiri leader, Syed Mir Qasim, and told him, in Urdu, that the Sheikh was insistent on a confederation. Qasim replied: “Sir, kaan kaat dijaye”, which can be translated only as “please cut the ears”. “Whose ears am I supposed to cut?” Nehru asked testily.

A repentant Qasim explained: “Sir, all I am suggesting is that the letters ‘con’ should be removed from confederation”. This was conveyed to Abdullah but made no difference at all. The Abdullah-Ayub talks were confined to the confederation idea alone. The field marshal heard his honou-red guest’s pleas with full attention and patience. Even while rejecting the Sheikh’s proposal, he did so with courtesy.

One remarkable argument he expounded against a confederation is worth quoting at some length. After rejecting the idea fundamentally, Ayub added: “Another problem is that your arrangement would generate strong pressures in East Pakistan to merge with West Bengal, and in Bengal as a whole to join the confederation as an independent member. Similarly, South India, Rajasthan and even the Sikhs would want to become autonomous members of the proposed confederation.”

The failure of the Sheikh’s mission was announced on the evening of May 26, 1964. But it was accompanied with the declaration that Nehru and Ayub will meet in Delhi in the middle of June, and that the Sheikh would “not be far from the conference table”. The next morning, the Sheikh, together with his entire caravan of which I was a member, left for Muzaffarabad, the capital of “Azad” Kashmir, according to his schedule. The news of Nehru’s illness reached us at Murree, a charming hill station. And he passed into history the moment we set foot in Muzaffarabad. Since the tremendous emotion and mourning for Nehru in Pakistan has been written about elaborately and often, let me not repeat it here. But I must quote from Ayub’s own writing on the Sheikh’s visit in his book, Friends, Not Masters (1967), if only to underscore his change of tone.

“When Sheikh Abdullah and Mirza Afzal Beg came to Pakistan in 1964,” he wrote, “they had brought the absurd proposal for a confederation. I told him (sic) plainly that we would have nothing to do with it. It is curious that whereas we were seeking the salvation of Kashmiris, they had been forced to mention an idea which, if pursued, would lead to our enslavement. It is clear that this was what Mr Nehru had told them to say to us”. Obviously, Pakistan’s first military dictator knew little about Nehru, whose refusal to accept a confederation has been stated above, or the Sheikh with a long history of defiance of his friend, Nehru.

It is perhaps needless to add that when Ayub’s book came out, Sheikh Abdullah was again in jail, this time round down south in Kodaikanal. He read the copy sent to him from cover to cover and immediately wrote to Pakistan’s president: “The late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru never forced us to put any particular proposal. No, we are not made that way.”

 

The writer is a Delhi-based political commentator

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

  1. K
    K SHESHU
    Jan 11, 2016 at 4:50 pm
    From the times of Kashmir accession till date many discussions wre held in private rather than in public domain. Much of Kashmir history is shrouded in secrecy...
    Reply
    1. A
      Aashish Kumar
      Jun 14, 2016 at 7:26 am
      True, stan often twists facts but ground realities are very hard hitting...
      Reply
      1. A
        Aditya Gaiha
        Jan 13, 2016 at 5:31 pm
        Akhand Bharat has nothing to do with political boundaries per se. It is an idea espousing the cultural and historical and social linkages of more than five thousand years of continuous civilization in this part of the world. In fact it is more in line with the so called unity in diversity call from different political parties rather than anything to do with Hindu nationalism or dominance. As far as political union or federation or confederation is concerned it is highly unlikely instead baby steps towards a South Asian economic union are perhaps a better and more practical idea.
        Reply
        1. A
          Anil Tandale
          Jan 11, 2016 at 4:03 am
          This write up hides everything but reveals nothing. The writer is fixated to condemn any thought contrary to the perception of Nehru's thoughts. The writer cannot be unaware that entire Europe has Euro as common currency, why not begin with atleast common currency and form trade cartel. Confederation or otherwise would be either nearer or distant.
          Reply
          1. d
            dv1936
            Jan 11, 2016 at 3:19 pm
            Akhand Bharat needs Hindus to unite, that is not possible. We have seen it in UP as also in Bihar. Most of the so called Hindus are Muslindus or pro Muslim and anti Hindu.
            Reply
            1. A
              Atul
              Jan 11, 2016 at 8:29 am
              Mr Malhotra is a celebrated writer so I can't p any remark on what he said but as far as Nehru is concerned I do not think he was physically capable to suggest anything like Confederation.I am 72 now and 22 then and was reading TOI regularly but I am not aware about any such suggestion because Mr Nehru knew that anything like that is impossible.And one more thing even at 72 my memory is intact.
              Reply
              1. V
                Vinod Vinayak
                Jan 11, 2016 at 9:30 am
                Akhand Bharat will only be possible when we Hindus become more strong with the use of arms and military tactics and strategies. we should develop more deadly weapons.
                Reply
                1. Load More Comments