Genesis Of The Kashmir Dispute
By Syed Ali Safvi
21 February, 2007
Countercurrents.orgThe last fifteen years have proved so painful for the poor Kashmiris. They are getting crushed between the two estranged neighbours of Asia; India and Pakistan. There is no escaping the fact that it is the common masses that have to undergo stiff trials and tribulations every now and then. The queries that frequently strike the mind of every common Kashmiri in general and particularly the wretched new generation of the valley, which has never witnessed peace in their native land, are that why are we being treated as slaves? Why don't we have the right to speak for ourselves? And many more.
Much has been written over Kashmir, particularly in the last fifteen years. Kashmir has been an ideal subject matter for the writers to sell out their books. But the question, however, is how far the information provided by these authors, often biased, is accurate and relevant. To understand the intricacy of Kashmir, we have to re-operate the chest of history in order to scrutinize the facts, but being impartial. There are, albeit, many factors responsible for the dispute over Kashmir, but some are indeed very substantial and merit attention. Let's explore the key factors precisely responsible for the dispute over the vale of Kashmir.
The debate concerning the future of Kashmir gained ground particularly from the days of transfer of power and the partition of British India way back in 1947. The last Viceroy of British India, Sir Lord Mountbatten's rather friendly relationship with Jawaharlal Nehru and the latter's sympathetic attitude towards Sheikh Abdullah and strong affection to what after all was his ancestral home, Kashmir was the root of all crisis, which remains very much alive nearly sixty years on. Around this emotional 'triangle' revolves the history of the Kashmir dispute. Nevertheless, many other famous personalities of the past too played their part, but these three men ultimately were to decide the future of Kashmir and its people. The brutal and anti-Muslim regime of the Dogras, particularly the reign of Maharaja Hari Singh, who was instrumental to slay thousands of Muslims in the Poonch uprising facilitated by the Armed bands of extremist militant Hindu party in India, the Rashtrya Sevak Sang (RSS), was responsible for the splitting up of public opinion with regard to the choosing of country and the exodus of over one lakh Muslims from Poonch. In 1946, majority of the Kashmir people wanted an independent state. The two major political parties at that time, National Conference headed by Sheikh M. Abdullah and the Muslim Conference, however, had kept other options open in case the dream of independent Kashmir was not realized. Sheikh's National Conference had opened its doors for Indian accession (Sheikh Abdullah's decision might have been triggered out of his indifference towards M.A. Jinnah), while Muslim Conference, owing to its links to the Muslim League in British India, was ready with accession to Pakistan. One of the prominent writers of the contemporary world, Alastair Lamb writes, " It is to be regretted that during the crucial weeks prior to the Transfer of Power Sheikh Abdullah remained in prison and was unable either to keep in touch with the march of events or to make his own views widely clear ".
To Sheikh Abdullah, the idea of independence to Kashmir appealed above all. Sheikh was virtually 'worshipped' by the people of the valley. Although, the main objectives behind Sheikh Abdullah's "Quit Kashmir" movement was the removal of Dogra rule and its replacement by an independent Kashmir, but later on he had developed strong affection towards India, or to be more specific, towards Jawaharlal Nehru, who was after all responsible for his release from the Maharaja's prison. When Jawaharlal Nehru realized the special position of Sheikh Abdullah in the state, he accordingly used Sheikh's influence as a tool in his policy of Jammu and Kashmir. This was indeed the reason why Nehru urged the release of Sheikh Abdullah and the latter's radical change from his policy of Independent Kashmir. Nevertheless, If Sheikh Abdullah would not have been in prison at the time of the Transfer of Power, even then there would not have been any change in his stand over the accession to India, since he strongly disliked M.A. Jinnah and his Muslim League. Sheikh Abdullah, nonetheless, proved
to be a profitable investment for India in the long run.Anxious Indian leaders, in Delhi, used all the political tactics to make Kashmir a part of India. The policy of India has always been to dislodge the anti-India elements in the valley. Pandit Ram Kak, Maharaja's Prime Minister, was expelled in 1947 owing to his policy of non-Indian future for the state. Even the Indian loyalist Sheikh Abdullah was not spared. Sheikh was put behind bars for his constant demand for the 'promised' autonomy. Augmentation of Pro-Indian elements in the administration supplemented the interest of Maharaja Hari Singh to accede to India. However, before he could have realized his ambition, Indian leaders were quick enough to grab the opportunity of 'invading' Kashmir.
Jawaharlal Nehru played a rather controversial part in the Pathan invasion in 1947. The purpose of sending the forces to Kashmir, as Nehru himself declared in the telegram to British Prime Minister, Attlee on 25 th October, was only to encounter the advancing Pathan forces and not something designed to influence the state to accede to India. Although Nehru and Mountbatten had declared that the decision of accession must be decided according to the wishes of the people, but pragmatically that was not to be the case. There is no escaping the fact that the decision of accession to India was taken against the will and wishes of the majority of the population of the state.
There is a big controversy with regard to the 'Instrument of Accession' and it has not been clearly stated by several biased Indian narrators. The conspiracy of V.P. Menon, who drafted the letter offering Accession (which was almost certainly drafted in New Delhi without the prior consent of the Maharaja) as well as the letter of Acceptance and who along with M.C. Mahajan actually gave birth to the Accession Crisis, is hardly paid attention to. Menon and Mahajan were supposed to fly to Jammu in the afternoon of 26th October 1947 and bring the Instrument of Accession duly signed by the Maharaja to enable Indian troops to be flown to Kashmir. However, neither Menon nor Mahajan had left Delhi for Jammu on 26th October. In the words of Alastair Lamb " Menon certainly contributed to the widely held conviction that the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir had indeed signed up with India some hours before the first Indian regular soldiers set foot on Kashmir soil." (Incomplete Partition). It may be noted here that the then Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten had made Accession a prior condition to any sort of Indian intervention in the state. However, the fact is that, Indian
troops were flown to Srinagar well before the state of Jammu and Kashmir formally acceded to the Indian union. It now becomes apparent that India was determined to manipulate the state of Jammu & Kashmir even at the cost of the wishes of its natives. Many Indian narrators have not considered this act of extreme treachery by some egocentric Indian bureaucrats and
their mentors. Nonetheless, no evidence is to be found whatsoever in the history about Maharaja's signing of the 'alleged' instrument of Accession (at least prior to 27th of October 1947, which is claimed).Indians have always been effective at spreading rumors and cashing on it (at least in case of Kashmir). Indians, very skilfully, held Pakistan responsible for whatever was happening in
Kashmir. Indian leaders and media have perfectly attested the truth in Joseph Goebel's sayings, " frequently repeated lies have the potential of being acknowledged as the truth". Even the Governor-General, Mountbatten appeared to have accepted without question every rumour hostile to Pakistan. On the contrary, it was India which was intervening in the internal affairs of what was to all intents an independent state "in the throes of civil conflict". However, the British Government (Prime Minister Attlee's letter to Jawaharlal Nehru on 26 October) and Commonwealth Relations Office had recommended India to restrain from accepting the document of Accession and discuss the question of Kashmir's future with the Maharaja and the Prime Minister of Pakistan, nevertheless the Indians, backed by Mountbatten, who was deeply committed to a policy of Indian military activity coupled with accession, made negotiations quiet impossible. It is an admitted fact that if India had established contacts with Pakistan when the former recognized the latter's role in aiding the Azad forces, the dispute over the future of Kashmir would not have stretched so far. But, it was a conspiracy on part of Indian leaders for not consulting the Pakistan Govt. prior to dispatching forces to Kashmir. This proves the fact that the Indian side was committed to legitimize its stand on the state by hook or crook and at the same time it didn't want Pakistan to be a party to it.All the efforts made by the United Nation Security Council (UNSC) in holding the plebiscite in the state of Jammu and Kashmir proved futile. Although, India had repeatedly pledged that the question of Kashmir's accession would be decided in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiris, but the pledge is still to be honoured. India has denied the right of self determination to the people of Kashmir. The question is what it is in the resolution that irks the Indian side. Omkar Razdan writes " The will of the people of Kashmir has been held supreme in these resolutions. If this "will" is with the state of India, as the Indian media would want Indians to believe, then why do we fritter our energy in fighting a bloody proxy war in the state. " (The Trauma of Kashmir).
However, with the passage of time, India has transformed Kashmir into a military camp and all the promises made to the Kashmiri people by Nehru and Mountbatten have been forgone by the successive regimes of Indian politics. More has been said than done for Kashmiris. Kashmir has, particularly in the last more than a decade, witnessed scores of soul-deadening incidents. All methods of human rights violation have been adopted by the Indian troops and the militant outfits. The brutality has put to shame the likes of Hitler and Chengez Khan. Ruthless interrogations, illegal use of forces, disappearance, rape, and custodial killings have become regular phenomena in Kashmir. Meanwhile, death of thousands of young men is upsetting the sex ratio, economy is in depression, education has gone down, child labour has become rampant, and many other social evils have cropped up. The paradise of Kashmir has not just been lost but ruined and peace in the vale has been broken into 'pieces'. Ironically, the electronic media of a democratic Indian state portrays the situation in Kashmir as 'normal'.
Common Kashmiris die a thousand deaths each day and nobody pays heed to their miseries.
On the contrary they are treated merely as slaves who have been deprived of their fundamental rights. The concern of the army and militant outfits is to keep Kashmir; the means are not their concern. The militants lob grenades at security personals and in the bargain the blood of innocent Kashmiris is spilled over the green valley. Kashmiris are, as Arundhati Roy once said, " sandwiched between security forces and militants." It is a high time for all the Kashmiris, particularly the new generation to wake up and think about the prospect of Kashmir and Kashmiris. What Kashmir requires today is a leader who has no attachment with money nor the lure for power; a leader, who would be committed to bring peace to the grief-stricken valley. Unfortunately, at present there is hardly any leader worth the name and that has added to the miseries of Kashmiris.There have been innumerable direct bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan, on or including Kashmir in the last five decades, but unfortunately all these discussions have not yielded any result, and rightly so. Robert G. Wirsing has rightly stated that " India and Pakistan are far from free to settle the Kashmir dispute in their own terms." (Kashmir in the Shadow of War).
Despite the fact that Kashmir was never a property of either India or Pakistan and there can be no question of deciding the fate of Kashmiris without their consent, Kashmiris were, ironically, ignored in the dialogue between New Delhi and Islamabad to resolve the Kashmir dispute. However, it is a good gesture that both the countries have realized the importance of Kashmiris representation in the dialogue process.
The problem of Kashmir would only be resolved through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite. But holding of Plebiscite with only two options (union with either Indian or Pakistan) is not now acceptable to the bulk of Kashmiris. The ideal solution for Kashmiris, as Prof. Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema of Pakistan asserted, would be an "independent status for the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir". Steps like starting a bus service from Srinagar to Muzaffarabad, laying down railway lines, or giving hefty economic packages won't solve the problem of Kashmir. Both India and Pakistan should make U.N Resolutions the basis of solving the problem. U.N. resolution, after all, was responsible to ultimately solve the international disputes in South Africa and Angola. India and Pakistan must keep the interest of Kashmiri people paramount and take serious and resolute initiative in order to make things better for the common mass of Kashmir and settle the Kashmir issue once and for all.
(The author can be reached at [email protected])
Get CC HeadlinesOn your Desk Top