Three Occasions When the Idea of a Vishal Himachal Came Calling

The idea of a hill state in today's India seems somewhat obvious. However it was not the case. Barring Jammu and Kashmir and the exceptions of territories given to Tripura, Manipur and Nagaland, the hilly regions especially of North India were certainly not seen from the view point of an independent political identity fit for statehood within the Indian state with favor.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons

The circumstances surrounding the formation and recreation of Himachal Pradesh is in itself a case study of aspirations coalescing with vision and foresight of a few, and deserve a longer answer. When Himachal Pradesh was born in 1951 following the Constitution's adoption, it had the status of a type C state. Some other states with such a status included some princely states or special cases like Delhi. However, it bore little resemblance with the present day Himachal Pradesh. There was great territorial overlap between Punjab, Haryana and Himachal's territories of the present day. However, this is a shorter story of an idea that came up thrice starting from 1947, and twice during the states reorganization process in varying forms.

The idea of a larger, contiguous hill state was floated as an alternative by a group of politicians of Himachal Pradesh. The drivers, as Rajjender Attri has written in his short biographical take on Dr Y S Parmar, were primarily three fold:

• The unique culture and language identity of the hills was threatened by the plains culture and population. This was felt acutely, due to which the idea of Maha Punjab as floated by some Punjab based politicians and supported by Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee among others through a dissent note on the States Reorganization Commission was continually opposed.
• Economic exploitation and lesser interest by government machinery was another factor, given the disparity of economic status. The people of the hills were extremely poor when compared to the residents of the Punjab and Haryana regions. Moreover, difficult life of the hills meant that government officers were less than eager to be posted in the region, and even after being posted were less than eager to discharge duties.
• There was this feeling that a larger contiguous hill territory would find it easier to coalesce culturally and linguistically, given the affinities. This would also enable resource utilization that would be better. Of course, then as now, there was much talk of the need for financial viability, something present day Himachal demonstrated over the decades. It was believed that the central resources would be necessary to build basic infrastructure. That is why when Himachal was downgraded to Union territory status against popular will some big leaders like Dr Parmar seemingly chose to keep quiet.

The idea was rather tempting however, and raises questions of what would have happened. Of course, speculation is not the idea here. The idea here is to highlight briefly the three occasions when the story of a bigger state kept coming up.

1947 - the Ghost of a Dogristan

In the winter of October 1947, as the parleys over the merger of Jammu and Kashmir were going on publicly and secretly, there was this ghost of the idea of a Dogristan floated. Essentially, the story goes that his Rajguru Swami Sant Deo who floated the idea of Dogristan, and had even predicted that if he held on for long enough, it would materialize. This Dogristan, as A G Noorani pointed out, was an idea that was going around as propaganda in the form of rumour mongering within Jammu and Kashmir and in the Punjab. This state would include besides the Jammu and Kashmir State, Kangra, Chamba, Mandir and other princely states constituting the western flank of present day Himachal Pradesh.

Of course, there is another side to it. As Radha Raju has pointed out in her assessment of then J&K Prime Minister Ramchandra Kak, there were enough indications that this was a smokescreen being used to carry on negotiations with India on the terms and conditions for the merger. There was the recognition of the fact that the state had a Hindu Buddhist minority of sizeable number, and their rights would have to be secured in the face of an increasingly assertive majority.

Nevertheless, we can only imagine how this Dogristan would look like. Of course, there being great cultural affinity within the stretch of regions identified as parts of it, it comes as no surprise that such an idea was born in the first place.

Blue Line is a Rough Estimation of the Dogristan Map

The Call for a Vishal Himachal in the 1950s

When Himachal Pradesh, which consisted of Shimla, Sirmour, and a few other small princely estates, was downgraded to the status of Union Territory in 1956, there was a movement initiated to restore statehood. However, there were parallel movements happening inside PEPSU and Punjab of the time to create a Maha Punjab state that would include Himachal Pradesh at the time.

It was around this time that certain sections of Congress members from Himachal Pradesh came up with the idea of a Vishal Himachal. The theoretical premise for the necessity of a Vishal Himachal was simple - the hill states had a contiguous cultural affinity and had similar problems. There was a lot of talk about not creating small states at the time, and even the Jan Sangh was divided on the issue into two camps. One of the Jan Sangh camps was essentially state level leaders who were against the merger of Himachal’s territories into Punjab. The other was led by Atal Behari Vajpayee, who had also been part of the state reorganization commission, had put in a dissent note that wanted to prevent the reorganization of Punjab; instead, this note had supported the Maha Punjab idea that was propagated by nearly all major parties of Punjab at the time barring the Shiromani Akali Dal.

It was in this backdrop that the idea of a Vishal Himachal was born, and even found a few takers in Delhi’s mainstream political class. The idea was to merge all the hill areas - starting from Kangra, Mukerian, Dasua and Pathankot and including Kumaon and Garhwal into one larger political identity. It would also include places like Kalka and Morni hills, now part of Haryana.

Rough Estimation of the Vishal Himachal Boundaries

1968 - the Idea Turns Up Again

On 26 July 1968, Rajya Sabha was debating the resolution of granting full statehood to Himachal Pradesh, whose boundaries had been redrawn post delimitation. One member of the Congress from the Madras state, Mr. R T Parthasarthy, among the members who called attention, stood out.

Mr Parthasarthy proposed an interesting insight that sought to kill two birds with a stone. Statehood for Himachal should also include the merger of Jammu, thereby ending the Kashmir problem for good. This made even the Chair, Vice President Shri Krishna Kant sit up in notice. While calling on the restoration of statehood for Himachal Pradesh in the form desired, Mr Parthasarthy called for the merger of Jammu into the state of Himachal Pradesh. I will quote what he had said in Parliament verbatim:

“Sir, I would like to add a word more. I do not know how the hon. Members of this House would react, but 1 consider this to be a very important suggestion, coming as I do from the South and speaking about the extreme north. Sir, with regard to the constitution of the State of Himachal Pradesh I would very respectfully ask the Government as to why they should not make a Vishal Himachal Pradesh by adding the State of Jammu and making it part and parcel of Himachal Pradesh. I throw the suggestion and I would very much like to invite comments favourable as well as unfavourable or adverse from the hon. Members of this House. The State of Jammu and Himachal Pradesh should be united under a common banner. You may call it Vishal Himachal Pradesh or by any other name that you like. But if such a State comes into existence, I am very confident that it would not only make the northern part of India very viable in every respect but it would be the most powerful State in the northern region. That would to a very large extent ease the position and pave the way for solving the age-old Kashmir problem. I leave it there and I do not want to add anything more to that.”

He in fact reiterated on being asked by Krishna Kant that he referred only and only to Jammu and not to the entire state.

However, many other speakers who were also supporting the idea shot it down. For instance, Smt. Satyavati Dang, in her turn, did not agree to the proposal. Quoting her verbatim from the debate:

“An hon. Member has brought in the matter of integration of Jammu alone. I wish he had avoided a mention of this subject. The matter of Jammu and Kashmir has international implications and had best be left to the Government of India. However, if it is to be discussed, let it be clear that, as far as Himachal Pradesh is concerned, it would welcome the integration of the whole State of Jammu and Kashmir and not Jammu alone as that will lead to the handing over of Kashmir to Pakistan, which no one in this House or outside can permit.”

We can see a sense of clarity in Mr. Parthasarthy’s observation of course. This is an idea that in a partial way reflects a position taken by many observers. One such group, Panun Kashmir, has in fact demanded for a long time the break up of erstwhile the Jammu and Kashmir state, and though they proposed a separate Jammu state, it was not far from the idea. We can again only imagine what the bigger state would look like.

The Parthasarthy Proposal