The Kashmir issue (New Delhi, August 1952) SHYAMAPROSAD MOOKERJEA (1901–1953)

The Kashmir issue (New Delhi, August 1952)
SHYAMAPROSAD MOOKERJEA (1901–1953)

Between 1950 and 1952, while the rest of India settled down with the new
Constitution, conditions in Jammu and Kashmir remained troubled. e
problem about the border with Pakistan remained unresolved. ere were
also the issues of Kashmir’s relationship with India and the tension between
the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley and Hindu-dominated Jammu.
Shyamaprosad Mookerjea, who had founded the Bharatiya Jana Sangh
post-independence, made his name in Parliament for his fiery speeches
against official policy on Kashmir. In this scathing attack on Nehru’s
government, he argued that Sheikh Abdullah was asking for limited
accession to the Indian Union. is kind of special treatment was
unacceptable and Shyamaprosad insinuated that for reasons best known to
Nehru himself, Abdullah was being soft-pedalled.

MAIN SPEECH

I agree with the Prime Minister that the matter of Kashmir is a highly

complicated one and each one of us, whatever may be his point of view,

must approach this problem from a constructive standpoint. I cannot share

the view that we are creating a new heaven and a new earth by accepting the

scheme which has been placed before the House on the motion of the

Prime Minister. e question can be divided into two parts. One relates to

the international complications arising out of Kashmir and the other relates

to the arrangements that have to be made between Kashmir and ourselves

regarding the future Constitution of Kashmir.

It has been said that I was a party when the decision was taken to refer the

Kashmir issue to the UNO. at is an obvious fact. I have no right and I do

not wish to disclose the extraordinary circumstances under which that

d k d h h h h G f

decision was taken and the great expectations which the Government of

India had on that occasion, but it is a matter of common knowledge that we

have not got fair treatment from the United Nations, which we had

expected. We did not go to the UNO with regard to the question of

accession, because accession then was an established fact. We went there for

the purpose of getting a quick decision from the UNO regarding the raids

which were then taking place by persons behind whom there was the

Pakistan Government. e raiders merely acted on behalf of somebody else.

Somehow, we should withdraw ourselves, so far as consideration of the

Kashmir case is concerned, from the UNO. We can tell them respectfully

that we have had enough of the UNO and let us now consider and try to

settle the matter through our own efforts. I am not suggesting that India

should withdraw from the UNO. e only matter regarding which the

dispute still continues is then an established fact. We went there for the

purpose of getting a quick decision from the UNO about the occupation of

the enemy. e Prime Minister said today, that, that portion is there. It is a

matter for national humiliation. We say that Kashmir is a part of India. It is

so. So, a part of India is today in the occupation of the enemy and we are

helpless. We are peace-lovers, no doubt. But peace-lovers to what extent?—

at we will even allow a portion of our territory to be occupied by the

enemy? Of course the Prime Minister said: thus far and no further. If the

raiders enter into any part of Kashmir, he held out a threat of war not in

relation to Pakistan and Kashmir, but war on a bigger scale between India

and Pakistan.

Is there any possibility of our getting back this territory? We shall not get it

through the efforts of the United Nations, we shall not get it through

peaceful methods, by negotiations with Pakistan. at means we lose it,

unless we use force and the Prime Minister is unwilling to do so. Let us face

facts—are we prepared to lose it?

It has been said that there is some provision in the Constitution, that we are

bound by the pledges which have been given. Pledges? Undoubtedly, so

many pledges we have given. We gave a pledge to Hyderabad. Did we not

say that there would be a Constituent Assembly for Hyderabad? It was

followed by another pledge that the future of Hyderabad would be decided

by the Legislative Assembly of Hyderabad. But is not Hyderabad already a

part of the Indian Union? We gave pledges also to those princes whom we

are liquidating in different forms today. If we talk of pledges, we have given

l d h W l d h E

pledges on many other occasions. We gave pledges to the minorities in East

Bengal. at was given after the attainment of independence. e Prime

Minister said the other day that even if Kashmir had not acceded to India,

when Kashmir was attacked by the raiders, on humanitarian grounds the

Indian army could have marched to Kashmir and protected the distressed

and oppressed. I felt proud. But if I make a similar statement, or even a

similar suggestion for the purpose of saving the lives and honour of nine

million of our fellow brethren and sisters—through whose sacrifices, to

some extent at least, freedom has been achieved, I am a communalist, I am

a reactionary, I am a war-monger!

Pledges? Undoubtedly pledges have been given. I am also anxious that

pledges should be respected and honoured. What was the nature of the

pledges? We did not give any new pledge to Kashmir. Let us be clear about

it.

What was the set-up we accepted when the British withdrew from India?

ere was the Indian India divided into India and Pakistan and there was, if

I may call it, the Princely India. Everyone of those five hundred rulers got

theoretical independence and they need have acceded to India only with

relation to three subjects. So far as the rest was concerned it was purely

voluntary. at was the pattern which we accepted from the British

Government. So far as the 498 states were concerned, they came to India,

acceded to India on the 14th August 1947 in relation to three subjects only,

but still it was accession, full accession. Later on, they all came in relation to

all these subjects and were gradually absorbed in the Constitution of India

that we have passed. Supposing some sort of fulfilment of the pledge that

we are thinking of so literally in relation to Kashmir, was demanded by

these states, would we have agreed to give that? We would not have because

that would have destroyed India. But there was a different approach to the

solution of those problems. ey were made to feel that in the interest of

India, in their interest, in the interest of mutual progress, they will have to

accept this constitution that we are preparing and the constitution made

elaborate provisions for nationally absorbing them into its fabric. No

coercion, no compulsion. ey were made to feel that they could get what

they wanted from this Constitution.

May I ask—was not Sheikh Abdullah a party to this Constitution? He was

a member of the Constituent Assembly; but he is asking for special

D d h h C l h

treatment. Did he not agree to accept this Constitution in relation to the

rest of India, including 498 states. If it is good enough for all of them, why

should it not be good enough for him in Kashmir?

We are referred to the provision in the Constitution. e member from

Bihar… said there was going to be compulsion; that we are going to hold a

pistol at the head of Jammu and Kashmir saying that they must accept our

terms. I have said nothing of the kind. How can we say that? What is the

provision we have made in the Constitution? Article 370—read it and read

the speech of Shri Gopalaswami Ayyangar when he moved the adoption of

that extraordinary provision. What was the position then? All the other

states had come into the picture. Kashmir could not because of special

reasons. ey were: first the matter was in the hands of the Security

Council; secondly, there was war; thirdly, a portion of Kashmir territory was

in the hands of the enemy and lastly an assurance had been given to

Kashmir that the Constituent Assembly would be allowed to be formed and

the wishes of the people of Kashmir ascertained through a plebiscite. ose

were the factors that had yet to be fulfilled and that was why a permanent

decision could not be taken. It was a temporary provision.

He said categorically that he and also the Kashmir Government hoped that

Jammu and Kashmir would accede to India just as any other state has done

and accept the provisions of the Constitution. It is not a question of

compulsion on our part. e Constitution of India does not say that

whatever the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir would ask for,

India would give. at is not the provision. e provision is—agreement,

consent.

Certain proposals have been made today. Some of us do not like them.

What are we to do? If we talk we are reactionaries, we are communalist, we

are enemies. If we keep quiet and if a catastrophe comes after a year, then:

you were a party to it, you kept quiet—therefore, you are stopped from

saying anything.

I am most anxious, as anxious as anybody else that we should have an

honourable, peaceful settlement with Kashmir. I realize the great

experiment which is being made on the soil of Kashmir. Partition did not

help anybody. I come from an area where sufferings are continuous, they are

going on. We feel every day, every hour, the tragic effects of Partition, the

tragic possibilities of approaching this national problem from a narrow,

l d f Wh d d l d

communal and sectarian point of view. Why did we not utter a single word

against the policy of Sheikh Abdullah so long? I could have spoken. I came

out of this government two and a half years ago. On the other hand, I

supported, wherever I spoke publicly the policy of the Kashmir

Government. I said that this was a great experiment which was going on

and we have to keep quiet and see that the experiment is made a success.

We must be able to show that India is not only in theory, but also in fact, a

country where Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and everyone will be able to

live without fear and with equality of rights. at is the Constitution that

we have framed and which we propose to apply rigorously and scrupulously.

ere may be some demands to the contrary here and there. But do not

regard that, whenever an attack is made on certain matters of policy, some

narrow, sectarian, communal motive is prompting us. Rather it is the fear

that history may repeat itself. It is the fear that what you are going to do

may lead to the ‘Balkanization’ of India, may lead to the strengthening of

the hands of those who do not want to see a strong united India, may lead

to the strengthening of those who do not believe that India is a nation but is

a combination of separate nationalities. at is the danger.

Now, what is it that Sheikh Abdullah has asked for? He has asked for

certain changes to be made in the Constitution. Let us proceed coolly,

cautiously, without any heat or excitement. Let us examine each of them

and ask him and ask ourselves: if we make an allowance in respect of these

matters do we hurt India, do we strengthen Kashmir? at will be my

approach. I shall not say anything blindly because it transgresses some

provisions of this book, the Constitution of India. I would not do so. I

would have liked the Prime Minister to have sent for some of us in the

Opposition when Sheikh Abdullah was here. He faces us today with his

decisions. I do not like these public discussions because I know their

repercussions may not be desirable in some quarters. He might not have

accepted our suggestions, but I would have liked to have met him—those of

us who differ from the Prime Minister’s attitude on this question. I met

him at a private meeting and we had a full and frank discussion. But we

would have liked to have met Sheikh Abdullah and others in a friendly way

and explained our point of view to them. We want to come to an

agreement, an agreement which will make it possible for India to retain her

unity and Kashmir to retain her separate existence from Pakistan and be

merged with India.

S h d d h bl L l k d l S

Since when did the trouble start? Let us look at it dispassionately. Since

Sheikh Abdullah’s return from Paris some time ago, statements started to

be made by him which disturbed us. Even then we did not speak out. His

first statement he made in an interview which he gave when he was abroad,

about his vision of an independent Kashmir. And then when he came he

amplified it, then again retracted from it and gave an explanation, and then

the speeches which he has made during the last few months were of a

disturbing character. If he feels that his safety lies in remaining out of India,

well, let him say so; we will be sorry for it, but it may become inevitable.

But if he feels honestly otherwise, as I have always hoped and wished, then

certainly it is for him also to explain why he wants these alterations to be

made.

Sheikh Abdullah spoke in the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir about

three or four months ago, words which have not been withdrawn, but words

which created a good deal of misgivings in the minds of all Indians

irrespective of party affiliations. I do not know whether the Prime Minister

saw this:

We are a hundred percent sovereign body. No country can put spokes in the wheel

of our progress. Neither the Indian Parliament nor any other Parliament outside

the state has any jurisdiction over our state.

It is an ominous statement. I shall make an offer to the Prime Minister and

to Sheikh Abdullah. I shall give my full, wholehearted support to the

scheme as an interim measure. e Prime Minister said today that nothing

is final. It cannot be final, because things have to be discussed in their

various details. But even then, I am prepared to give my support. Let two

conditions be fulfilled:

1. Let Sheikh Abdullah declare that he accepts the sovereignty of this

Parliament. ere cannot be two sovereign Parliaments in India. You talk of

Kashmir being a part of India, and Sheikh Abdullah talks of a sovereign

Parliament for Kashmir. It is inconsistent. It is contradictory. is

Parliament does not mean a few of us here who are opposing this. is

Parliament includes a majority of people who will not be swayed by any

small considerations. And why should he be afraid of accepting the

sovereignty of this Parliament of free India?

2. Secondly, it is not a matter of changing the provisions of the

Constitution by the President’s order. Let us look at some of the changes

h h b h f W f h M h  h

which are being sought for. We are supporters of the Maharaja! at is what

is said against us. I have never met the Maharaja. I do not know him

personally. We are not supporters of this Maharaja, or of any Maharaja as

such. But the Maharaja is there not by his own free will. e Parliament of

India, the Constitution has made him what he is, namely, the constitutional

head of Jammu and Kashmir. And what is the irony? At present Sheikh

Abdullah’s government is responsible to this Maharaja according to the

Constitution, responsible to one who is being described as a wretched

fellow who has to be turned out lock, stock and barrel. e Maharaja is

there as a constitutional head. If you feel that this should be taken out,

change your Constitution. Say that there will be no hereditary

Rajpramukhs. It is a matter worthy of consideration, let us consider it. But

see the way in which it has been put: a Hindu Maharaja is being removed.

at is one of the war cries in Pakistan. But who finished the royal powers

of Hindu Maharajas? Not Sheikh Abdullah, but the Constitution of free

India. We did it. We said that no ruler would have any extraordinary

powers, that he will be just head of the government which may be

technically responsible to him but later on responsible to an elected

legislature. But now great credit is being taken that a unique performance is

being done in Kashmir. In every speech of his he gave it: the Maharaja, the

Dogra raj is being finished. Is that a propaganda? Is that necessary? You are

flogging a dead horse. It is finished. What is the use of saying it?

What about the elected Governor? I have got here the proceedings of the

Constituent Assembly. e Prime Minister will remember that in our own

Constitution we at first made a provision for an elected Governor, and then

later on Sarder Patel and the Prime Minister and others felt that in the

democratic set-up that we contemplated an elected Governor had no place.

Read the speech. It was stated that the Governor will be there to act as the

representative of the President and if the Governor is elected by the people

or the legislature and the Chief Minister also will be elected: as such there is

every likelihood of a clash, then again, the Governor will be a party man.

And the Prime Minister pointed out all these considerations and claimed

that there was very special reason why in order to retain the unity of India

and contact between the Centre and all the states, the Governor should be

nominated by the President. You just ignore these basic points because

Sheikh Abdullah says: ‘I want an elected head now.’ Why can you not tell

him and others what you have done in the Constitution, that originally we

d d f l d G b f d d l f h h d d

provided for an elected Governor but after a good deal of thought we did

away with that? Even then I say if today in your wisdom you feel that an

elected head is a necessity and it will help you, consider it. Bring it up as a

specific proposal. Let us discuss the pros and cons of it. But suddenly my

friend Mr Hiren Mukerjee says: people are clamouring for an elected head

everywhere. Are you going to have elected heads everywhere? In fact, as

things are happening we may abolish governors altogether. Governorships

are often reserved for various classes of persons—disappointed, defeated,

rejected, unwanted ministers and so forth. We need not have this class at

all. Or, if you want to have them, have them. I am not particularly

interested. But this is a change for which no justification is given.

And then the flag. e flag has a significance. It will not do for the Prime

Minister to say that it is a matter of sentiment. It was announced in the

papers three days ago that the Indian flag will fly only on two ceremonial

occasions and otherwise the state flag alone will fly there.

If you feel that the unity and integrity of India are not affected and it will

not lead to fissiparous tendencies being generated, accept it and do it for all.

But why do it as a matter of surrender to Sheikh Abdullah’s demand?

He wanted to call himself the Prime Minister. at is how he first started.

Some of us did not like it. We know one Prime Minister of India including

Kashmir, that is the Prime Minister who is sitting here. How can you have

two Prime Ministers, one Prime Minister in Delhi and another Prime

Minister in Srinagar, who will not call himself the Chief Minister, but a

Prime Minister. At first I thought it was a small matter and we should not

look at it but see how the process is developing, some sort of special

treatment at every step and he must be treated in a very different way. Look

at the citizenship rights and fundamental rights. What is it that we are

doing? Has the House considered it? Has the House discussed the pros and

cons of the recommendations which have been made? You are changing

without giving much thought to the provisions of the Constitution

regarding citizenship. It was said that rich people are rushing to Kashmir

and purchasing property. As the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement

in Article 19 (5) there is a provision. We discussed this Article threadbare

when we framed the Constitution. ere were attempts made by various

provinces and they wanted to have some special protection against

unauthorized purchases of land on a large scale. What is it that we have

d W h d h l l l

said? We have said that any state legislature may pass a law, imposing

reasonable restrictions regarding acquisition of property or movement from

one part to another in the public interest or in the interest of Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

If Sheikh Abdullah feels that in Kashmir some special restriction should be

done, the clause is there. I would like to ask the Prime Minister

categorically about this. He has not mentioned it. He has skipped over it. Is

it intended that the restrictions which the Kashmir Assembly will impose

will be in accordance with this exception or is it proposed to give it

something more? ere are four classes of citizens. I have got the details,

but I have not the time to go through them. But those were done in the

time of the much cursed Maharaja. Are they to be maintained or are they

going to abolish the four different categories of citizenship? I am reminded

of a story which was written by Lord Curzon in a book. A distinguished

nobleman from England went to the court of the Shah of Persia 50 or 60

years ago accompanied by his wife. Both of them were presented and the

Shah was a bit inattentive and the secretary asked: ‘What should be the

honour done to the lady?’ ere were three different categories of Order of

Chastity and the award was made Order of Chastity—class three. at is

how the order came out and then it was realized that something had been

done which was of a staggering character, and of course amends were made

after the damage was done. Four classes of citizenship in Jammu and

Kashmir—what for? ey should be abolished. ere should be only one

class of citizenship. Would Indians take all your property? It was not

suggested that Indians should go and purchase property as they liked.

Supposing some Indian comes and purchases some property, you may have

legislative measures. We have accepted it. What is the fear? We have a

Kashmiri Prime Minister of India. We have a Kashmiri Home Minister of

India. We are happy in India. We do not mind it. We welcome them. What

is the fear? Is it feared that Indians will go and invade Kashmir and one of

them will become the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir?

I have never visited this beautiful part. I would like to go and stay there for

some time. I have not got the money to purchase a house. In any case, I

would like to go there. is is what you have in regard to fundamental

rights. You are having new changes there which are very difficult to justify.

e Prime Minister mentioned two or three things—scholarships and

services, etc. What is this ‘etc.’? And why services? In services, do you want

k d ff b d h E h

to make a difference between one citizen and another? Even there, as you

know, in our Constitution, Parliament and Parliament alone has the right to

make special provision regarding entrance to services for those who have to

be protected. Now there are similar demands made in the South. I have

been going through their demands during the last few weeks. ey also feel

perturbed by the strict operation of some of these provisions. When you

throw open the doors to them, they also will want similar protection.

ere is another thing to which the Prime Minister has not referred. I was

really amazed to find how a special provision could be made. As you know,

two lakhs of people have gone away to Pakistan. ere is a provision that a

special law will be incorporated to get these people back to Kashmir. War is

still going on. On the one hand fundamental rights regarding civil liberty

are proposed to be made more strict, and on the other, you are going to

throw open the door and allow Pakistanis to go to Kashmir; for this there is

to be a special law and there is a special agreement. Why this anxiety on the

part of Sheikh Abdullah to make a special provision for getting back those

who ran away to Pakistan and who are not prepared to come back. Is there

any point in it? How will it affect security? ose who have been killed

cannot go back. ose who are alive can come back tomorrow if they

honestly believe in India and if they really want to live in Jammu. ey must

be tested. Let them come back. No special provision is needed for it. So far

as Jammu is concerned, as you know, it was in a most tragic state. It was

done away by both sides. ere were Muslims who were bitter and there

were Hindus who were bitter. at was a dark period when many parts of

India were like that, but today, what is the position? You have allowed how

many thousands, I forgot the number. ey have come away from Jammu

and Kashmir and are a burden on India. Why should not there be a special

provision here in the agreement that promptly they will be taken back to

Jammu and Kashmir? ere are several thousand of them who have come.

Why are they not going back? I do not know how many Pandits have come

away from Kashmir. ey also must go back to Kashmir. So far as the other

portion is concerned, that also is a serious matter. In the one-third portion

of Jammu and Kashmir which is now under Pakistani occupation, nearly

one lakh of Hindus and Sikhs have come and taken shelter, within the

Kashmir territory. What will happen to them? ey will have to be taken

care of. You are thinking of those who have become Pakistanis for the time

being. You will reconvert them and reconfer on them the status of Kashmiri

b h f b h d h k h l h

citizens but those unfortunate beings who today have taken shelter, how

will they be given accommodation? Is there land enough for them? ese

are matters which have not received any attention.

As regards the emergency provision, it is an amazing stand. If there is an

emergency on account of internal disturbance, the President of India will

not have the last say. Why this fear of the President of India? Can you

contemplate a more gratuitous insult to the President of India? Here the

Kashmir Government must conform to the Constitution. Why should they

request if there is an internal disturbance which is the creation of their own

misdeeds?

Why should they request you if, for instance, they are in league with others

from the upper side, China or Russia, through our other friends? Why

should they come and request you for your interference? I would expect the

Prime Minister to tell whether the other emergency provisions here apply

or not. As you know, there are two other very important emergency

provisions in the Constitution. Article 354 relates to application of

provisions relating to distribution of revenues while a proclamation of

Emergency is in operation and the other Article is 356 relating to

provisions in case of failure of Constitutional machinery in the State. Has

Sheikh Abdullah accepted the application of Article 356 or has he accepted

the more important provision contained in Article 360—provisions as to

financial emergency? Has he accepted that provision? e Prime Minister

does not make any reference to it. e Supreme Court’s jurisdiction also has

not yet been accepted.

I shall conclude, by making this constructive suggestion. ese comments

which I made, naturally I had to make without commenting in detail on the

reactions of Sheikh Abdullah. He wrote to me and said that he would have

liked to meet me when he was in Delhi last time. I was not here on that day.

So I could not meet him. I sent him a friendly reply. Perhaps I would meet

him some time. It is not a question of his meeting me or I meeting him. I

submit that we must proceed according to certain standards. First of all

there is no question of the President by virtue of his power to make orders

altering the provisions of the Constitution in material respects. If the Prime

Minister feels that a case has been made out for re-examination of certain

important provisions, for instance, land, if you feel that land should be

taken without payment or compensation, provide for it in the Constitution.

Y d ll h d k l h

You consider all these items and make your provisions so elastic that you

can apply them either to the whole of India or you can apply them to only

such parts where the Parliament of India will feel that such special

treatment is necessary. Proceed in accordance with a constitutional manner,

not just play with the Constitution. It is a sacred document, and it is a

document on which much labour and much thought were bestowed. If you

feel some changes are necessary in order to take into consideration the new

set up that is slowly developing in India, whether in Kashmir or other parts

of India, by all means let the people of the country have a chance to express

their opinion.

Lastly, a charge was levelled that some of us have advocated separate

consideration of Jammu and Ladakh. I would assure you and the House

that I do not want that Jammu and Kashmir should be partitioned. I know

the horrors of Partition. I know the results which may ensure if Partition

comes. But the responsibility for preventing Partition will rest on those who

are today the masters of Jammu and Kashmir and are not prepared to adopt

the Constitution of India. What is the crime if today the people of Jammu

claim that they should be treated separately, in the sense that they should be

allowed to join fully with India—mark it, it is not a question of running

away from India—if they say that they would like to accept in toto the

Constitution of Free India, is there any crime that they then commit? I am

not suggesting that you partition Jammu and Kashmir. I am not suggesting

that you send Kashmir or Kashmir Valley out of India. And it is not for me

or for us sitting in this House to decide this matter. As the Prime Minister

pointed out very rightly, it is the people of that territory who will have to

decide. Now suppose the people of Jammu and Ladakh feel that either it

should be full accession in relation to the whole of Jammu and Kashmir, or

if that is not acceptable to Sheikh Abdullah, then, at least these two

provinces, the two separate entities could be justified historically or

otherwise, that they should be allowed to join with India. Let Kashmir

continue in any way that it likes, even with more autonomy, with less

possibility of interference by India; that is a possibility which we cannot rule

out. I hope that this question will be considered in its fullest possible

implications.

My friend from Kashmir, Maulana Masudi, for whom I have very great

regard—I tried to follow his speech this morning referred to Jammu, the

last question which I would answer. Well, if this demand is made by

J h d J h h h d M l

Jammu, he said Jammu is a province which in 1941 had a Muslim majority.

He said that, but did not complete the story. Undoubtedly it was a Muslim

majority Province in 1941, but it became a Muslim majority including those

districts which have now fallen into the Pakistani occupied areas.

I am not going to surrender them. I am very glad he has put the question.

e Prime Minister says that area will not be reoccupied, but it is a different

question. You are not going to re-occupy it, and it is not possible. In any

case those people have worked against Jammu and Kashmir, they have

become, as has been repeatedly said, more friendly to Pakistan than to

India.

If you take the 1951 census figures—the figures have not been published,

but it is on the basis of the territory that is under our occupation—75

percent of the population of Jammu will be Hindus. But I am not

proceeding on the basis of Hindus and Muslims. Let me make it clear. I am

proceeding on the basis of the will of the people to come to India either in

whole or in part.

If these two Provinces, Ladakh and Jammu, say that they will come to India

with all these subjects, make it possible for them to do so.

e same right which you are claiming for Kashmir may also be demanded

by the people of Jammu and Ladakh. Let us proceed in a friendly spirit.

Sheikh Abdullah himself said about a month ago that he will have no

objection if the people of Jammu and Ladakh really felt that they would go

to India. I am not saying that you have it done immediately or you proceed

in that way, but let it be possible for the people residing in those areas to

make up their minds which way it will be good to proceed, and it will also

be consistent with the same principles of self-determination which

constitute the basic claims of Sheikh Abdullah, supported by the Prime

Minister.