(Shri N.C. Chatterjee: We are not reactionaries).
You may not be reactionaries; but I take you to be reactionaries. We call our state a secular state. A secular state goes neither by scriptures nor by custom. It must work on sociological and political grounds. If we are a democratic state, I submit we must make laws not for one community alone. Today the Hindu community is not as much prepared for divorce as the Muslim community is for monogamy. You see what has happened in Pakistan. The Prime Minister of that country has married again. It is not the Hindu women or the Indian women but the Pakistani Muslim women who have condemned this. Will our government introduce a Bill for monogamy for the Muslim community? Will my dear Law Minister apply the part about monogamy to every community in India?
(An Hon. Member: He is blushing).
I tell you this is the democratic way; the other is the communal way. It is not the Mahasabhites who alone are communal; it is the government also that is communal, whatever it may say. It is passing a communal measure. You shall be known from your acts, not from your profession. You have deluded the world so often with words. I charge you with communalism because you are bringing forward a law about monogamy only for the Hindu community. You must bring it also for the Muslim community. Take it from me that the Muslim community is prepared to have it but you are not brave enough to do it. It is not the Hindu voice that is being raised but it is the Muslim voice that is being raised against the Prime Minister of Pakistan for having married a second wife. If you want to have for the Hindu community divorce, have it; but have it for the Catholic community also. You can call the Catholic community reactionary because it does not believe in divorce. But it is, throughout the world, a very progressive community; I believe that Catholicism has shown more vigour and vitality than Protestantism. Unfortunately, we were ruled by the English people and our ideas of progress are Protestant ideas of progress. Protestant society is not the only progressive society in the world! One thing more and I will have done. Is the divorce law going to benefit our women? I have read the notes of Mrs Renuka Ray…
(Shrimati Renu Chakravartty: Not Renuka Ray).
(An Hon. Member: Renu Chakravartty)
I am sorry. I have read the notes of Mrs Renu Chakravartty and another lady from the Upper House, with regard to the question of restitution of conjugal rights. When it is a question of restitution of conjugal rights, when it is a question of alimony, they tell us that our women are not advanced, they will be cheated by men and that they will be put at a disadvantage. The men will have the advantage because, they are more clever and resourceful than women.
Then let us not forget that in all the higher castes there is the system of dowry; and, sometimes, this dowry goes up to Rs. 50,000 or Rs. 60,000. The husband will bring about such conditions and he will bring about such evidence that he can get divorce from his wife and swallow the money that he got as dowry, and marry again and get fresh dowry. Our women are not economically independent. Where will they go, especially if they have a child or two? What will happen to them? Alimony will not last long and will not support them for ever. Do you think that a divorced woman will get a husband in India? It may be that some Doctor of Science or Literature or some highly educated woman may get a second husband. But, the average Indian woman will not get a second husband. If she is divorced she will have to wander from pillar to post before she can get a second husband.
(Shrimati Renu Chakravartty: Is it absolutely necessary?)
Even khana here becomes jhuta if you touch it. Who is going to have a marriage with a non-maiden? Our society is like that, not that I like it. I do not believe in these things and I believe I have been progressive enough. My marriage is a civil marriage and not a ‘criminal’ marriage. But, I am not thinking of myself. If I were thinking of myself, it would be all right. We are legislating for the country. I would want everybody to go in for civil marriage and not go in for a ‘criminal’ marriage. But what can I do? Society won’t move. These so-called idiots, our countrymen won’t move; what can one do? I do not think in terms of caste; I do not think in terms of province; I think in terms of men and women. In our marriage the two of us agreed and we had the civil marriage. We paid Rs. 5 as fee and everything was done. I want marriage to be like that. But, under present conditions, I say, if you want to pass a divorce law, give the right of divorce to woman only but never to men. I have no objection to our women getting this right. Let them be superior to us; they have always been superior to us. I am not ashamed that I am mismanaged by my wife. It is a fact; why should I be afraid of telling the truth?
(Shri A.M. Thomas [Ernakulam]: May I enquire whether there can be any personal aspersion like this?)
It is a personal aspersion on myself. Let us have a divorce law. Let only women have the right to divorce till there is economic equality, till we have provided social security for people and have destroyed the joint family system. Unless we do this, I am afraid, women will be the greatest sufferers. I say this because I believe that I am a friend of women and not their opponent. I do not want them to be suppressed.
(Pandit Balkrishna Sharma [Kanpur Distt.—South cum Etawah Distt.—East]: A lady’s man.)
Whatever you may call me, there are in this respect better men in the Congress than myself, and unfortunately, they are supporting this Bill.
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. The problem about the border with Pakistan remained unresolved. There 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. This kind of special treatment was unacceptable and Shyamaprosad insinuated that for reasons best known to Nehru himself, Abdullah was being soft-pedalled.
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. The 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. That is an obvious fact. I have no right and I do not wish to disclose the extraordinary circumstances under which that 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. The 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. The 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. The 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?—That 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. That 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 pledges on many other occasions. We gave pledges to the minorities in East Bengal. That was given after the attainment of independence. The 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? There 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. That 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. They 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. They 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 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. The 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. They 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. Those 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. The Constitution of India does not say that whatever the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir would ask for, India would give. That is not the provision. The 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, 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. That is the Constitution that we have framed and which we propose to apply rigorously and scrupulously. There 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. That 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? That 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.
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. The 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:
The Great Speeches of Modern India Page 26
