Teacher, educationist, author, diehard socialist, politician, veteran parliamentarian, debater par excellence and India’s Finance Minister, Professor Madhu Dandavate was a man of many parts.

A blue-blooded nationalist and an erudite personality, Dandavate was born in Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, on January 21, 1924 and plunged into politics at the age of 18 by participating in the Quit India Movement of 1942.
Transitioning eventually into a socialist politician and a champion of the downtrodden and underprivileged in Indian society, he played a leading role in nationalist campaigns like the movement for the liberation of Goa from Portuguese rule in 1955; the “Bhoodan Movement” (a voluntary land reform movement from 1951 to 1960) and the opposition movement to the Congress Party-imposed Emergency between 1975 and 1977.
As a parliamentarian, Dandavate served for five consecutive terms in the Lok Sabha (25 years), representing the Rajapur constituency in Maharashtra and served as India’s Finance Minister from 1977 to 1979.
An interesting aspect of his life as a politician and parliamentarian was his perspective on Kashmir. Dandavate’s stance- “the nation is first, always first" was consistent with his nationalist outlook and summarised his unconditional commitment along with others of his ilk to the well-being, progress and unity of India above everything else.
It also reflected his unwavering dedication to prioritise the interests, values and aspirations of India, much of which we as its citizens are witnessing today.
Dandavate’s ideology underscored the significance of national identity, sovereignty, development and highlighted the fact that a nation’s collective strength and prosperity can only be secured through the collective efforts and sacrifices of its citizens.
This idea of prioritising national interest above all else drove him and other like minded Indian leaders, activists, and citizens of his time to transcend their differences to forge a path towards unity in diversity as well as sovereignty.
As a socialist, insofar as the situation in J&K was concerned, Dandvate firmly believed that the problems of reconstruction, reconciliation and rejuvenation can only be solved if tensions existing on the ground are eliminated. He staunchly supported the idea of Hindu-Muslim unity and the preservation of communal harmony at all cost.
Acutely aware of the “abnormal” situation in J&K in the 1970s, he maintained that the only way out of the prevailing political stalemate of that time was to assess “the will of the people; and with the consent of the people and their co-operation…build a better atmosphere for Kashmir.”
We only have to look at his assessment of the Shimla Agreement of July 2, 1972, wherein he said in Parliament in 1975, that “I think the greatest merit of this agreement and the accord which has been arrived at, is that the problems are sought to be tackled and solved within the broader framework of India’s unity and within the broader framework of India’s Constitution.”
His view of 1975 that “Since there is no Article 370 for any other state (of the Indian Union), it must not remain on the statute,” expressed in 1975 has finally been achieved in the first quarter of the 21st century with the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution that granted special status to the erstwhile state of J&K. With the Supreme Court of India approving the Indian Government’s decision, Dandvate’s stand has been vindicated.
He also urged the political leadership of those times to look for “any person in Kashmir who can deliver the goods in Kashmir on behalf of the people of Kashmir.” One of his comments during that parliamentary debate of 1975, which resonates well with the management of J&K as a Union Territory today, and is being realised step-by-step since August 2019, was that, “Ultimately we have to carry all sections of the people of Kashmir with us. They have to have a sense of participation in the affairs of the country…”
Dandavate spoke of the need to find a “catalytic agent” who could help the people of Kashmir join the national mainstream and used this phrase because a catalytic agent accelerates the process without actually participating in it.
He actively supported and campaigned for a common agreement on Kashmir that would be brought about within the broader framework and ambit of India’s Constitution, and added that any “formulations and conclusions” arrived at must ensure that “the basic sovereign position of the Supreme Court of India” is never surrendered.
India, he said, could ill afford to undermine democratic institutions like the Supreme Court.
Professor Dandavate also astutely pointed to his fellow parliamentarians that they must always keep in mind the desire of “international forces… to willingly jump into the fray and make it (Kashmir) a pawn in international power politics.” He cautioned and warned the Indian state of the need to prevent these global powers from “using this beautiful territory of Kashmir as a hotbed” for international rivalries.
“As far as Kashmir is concerned, our attitude should be this. While we should make Kashmir an integral part of India, we must try to maintain certain characteristic features of Kashmir…”
In context of the Shimla Agreement on the Kashmir issue, Dandavate held that this region should retain its “peculiar characteristics and distinctive cultural features” and likened it to a woman who will “always be like a daughter in her mother’s house, but a mistress in her own.”


. Email: farooqwani61@yahoo.co.in