Skip to main content

Shyamaprasad Mukherjee had "supported" Kashmir autonomy, opposed Quit India

By A Representative
A new book by Subhash Gatade, "Hindutva's Second Coming", published by Media House, has revealed that Shyamaprasad Mukherjee, considered by BJP as one of the main Hindutva ideologues, who died in 1953 under "debatable circumstances" after being arrested for opposing the special status to Kashmir, had "initially accepted" the inevitability of Article 370, which provides autonomy the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).
Taking a leaf from the past on the basis of "documents, letters, memorandums, white papers, proclamations and amendments" brought to light by AG Noorani in ‘Article 370: A Constitutional History of J and K’, Gatade, a Left activist and author of several books and articles in Hindi and English, states, these are enough to "clear many a confusions about the tumultuous era in post-Independence times" pertaining to J&K.
Negotiated between Prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah, says Gatade, special status to J&K "had a stamp of approval from Sardar Patel and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, with Patel playing an "important role in getting the provision for J&K’s special status cleared by our Constituent Assembly."
He adds, "Contrary to the BJP propagated opinion, Patel intervened in a dispute between some Congress party members opposed to the special status and Jawaharlal Nehru’s minister (without portfolio but entrusted with the task of dealing with the issue) Gopalaswamy Ayyangar to ensure the smooth passage of Article 370 (called 306 then)."
Gatade quotes Jitendra Singh, former spokesperson of BJP for J&K and its national executive member as acknowledging Mukherjee "had suggested to first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to put a time-bound rider on ‘Article 370’ and specify for how long it was being envisaged.”
According to Gatade, "In his write-up in ‘The Greater Kashmir’, Balraj Puri, veteran journalist, has provided further details about the same: '[S]hyama Prasad’s prolonged triangular correspondence with Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah on the status of the state, which was published at that time by the party, is the most authentic evidence of his stand on the issue'."
In his letter dated January 9, 1953 to both of them, Mukherjee wrote: “We would readily agree to treat the valley with Sheikh Abdullah as the head in any special manner and for such time as he would like but Jammu and Ladakh must be fully integrated with India.”
Notes Gatade, while Nehru rejected the idea warning against its repercussions in Kashmir and the world, Abdullah sent a detailed reply in which he said, “You are perhaps not unaware of the attempts that are being made by Pakistan and other interested quarters to force a decision for disrupting the unity of the state. Once the ranks of the state people are divided, any solution can be foisted on them.”
Abdullah further quoted Mukherjee's letter to Pandit Nehru on February 17, 1953, where it was suggested that "both parties reiterate that the unity of the state will be maintained and that the principle of autonomy will apply to the province of Jammu and also to Ladakh and Kashmir Valley", and that the "implementation of Delhi agreement -- which granted special status to the state -- will be made at the next session of J&K Constituent Assembly.”
Gatade asserts, "Nehru replied that proposal for autonomy to the three provinces had been agreed by him and Abdullah in July 1952. If Mukerjee had realised his mistake, he should withdraw the agitation unconditionally. Mukherjee was unwilling to do it as it amounted to surrender. The deadlock prolonged over some way which could provide, what may be called, a face saving to the Jana Sangh."
Revealing this and more in the books's chapter "Can the Real Shyamaprasad Mukherjee would ever Stand Up?", Gatade says, Mukherjee -- born in 1901, joining the Hindu Mahasabha in 1939 to "espouse the cause of the Hindus" and was "a close associate of Savarkar" -- even joined the joined the Muslim League ministry headed by Fazlul Haq as finance minister and continued sharing power in Bengal during the tumultuous times of the ‘Quit India’ movement.
"The experiment to share power with Muslim League by the Hindu Mahasabha then was not limited to Bengal alone, it extended to Sind and as well as North West Frontier Province) and was part of a conscious policy adopted by the Hindu Mahasabha", Gatade says, adding, Mukherjee, who later became President of Hindu Mahasabha, "had no qualms in British efforts to suppress people’s movement against the British rule."
Thus, in his book ‘History of Modern Bengal’ Ramesh Chandra Mazumdar is quoted as referring to the Bengal Governor as saying that Mukherjee "ended the letter with a discussion of the mass movement organised by the Congress. He expressed the apprehension that the movement would create internal disorder and will endanger internal security during the war by exciting popular feeling and he opined that any government in power has to suppress it, but that according to him could not be done only by persecution."
Mukherjee's letter allegedly said that "anybody, who during the war, plans to stir up mass feeling, resulting internal disturbances or insecurity, must be resisted by any Government that may function for the time being... The question is how to combat this movement (Quit India) in Bengal?"
Mukherjee is claimed to have added, "The administration of the province should be carried on in such a manner that in spite of the best efforts of the Congress, this movement will fail to take root in the province... Indians have to trust the British, not for the sake for Britain, not for any advantage that the British might gain, but for the maintenance of the defense and freedom of the province itself."
However, Mukherjee got disillusioned with the Hindu Mahasabha, and after Gandhi’s assassination. He declared on February 6, 1948 that .."[i]n my considered judgement the Hindu Mahasabha has today two alternatives before it. The first is that it can break away from its political activities and confine its attention to social, cultural and religious matters alone.The other alternative is for the Hindu Mahasabha to abandon its communal composition, to reorient its policy and throw its doors open to any citizen, irrespective of religion..."

Comments

TRENDING

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan  The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

Four women lead the way among Tamil Nadu’s Muslim change-makers

By Syed Ali Mujtaba*  A report published by Awaz–The Voice (ATV), a news platform, highlights 10 Muslim change-makers in Tamil Nadu, among whom four are women. These individuals are driving social change through education, the arts, conservation, and activism. Representing diverse fields ranging from environmental protection and literature to political engagement and education, they are working to improve society across the state.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra   We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative   Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram   The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman*  In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative   A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

Samyukt Kisan Morcha raises concerns over ‘corporate bias’ in seed Bill

By A Representative   The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) has released a statement raising ten questions to Union Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan regarding the proposed Seed Bill 2025, alleging that the legislation is biased in favour of large multinational and domestic seed corporations and does not adequately safeguard farmers’ interests.