My
reply to a student from Singapore, Dr Shabir Choudhry
Deepika Chandrasekar is a student
who is doing some research on the following topic: "To what extent did the division of Jammu and Kashmir disrupt the
peace of the Indian subcontinent?"
Like so many other students around
the world who contact me for help and advice on various issues related to Jammu
and Kashmir and Indo Pak relations she also asked for help, and subsequently
sent me four questions. Her questions and my replies are as below.
1-
What are your views
on the Kashmir dispute?
Reply:
The Princely State of Jammu and
Kashmir enjoyed semi autonomous status under the British Raj. The State,
referred here as Kashmir included the areas currently occupied by India,
Pakistan and China and namely Jammu, the Valley of Kashmir, Ladakh (Occupied by
India); Aksai Chin occupied by China in 1962 Indo China war, and a tract of
approximately 2200 sq miles given to China by Pakistan to China in 1963 from
Gilgit Baltistan and areas of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan occupied by
Pakistan.
The British Raj in India consisted of
two units, namely the British India which was directly ruled by the India and
the Princely India consisted of more than 562 big and small Princely States and
was indirectly ruled by the British through separate treaties. Jammu and
Kashmir was among the biggest Princely States and enjoyed greater autonomy than
vast majority of other Princely States; and also had history and tradition of
being an independent country.
The Division of India which took
place in accordance with the Two Nations Theory was only applicable to the
British India; and did not apply to the Princely States, as pointed out in the
following documents:
The Cabinet Mission Memorandum
Third June Plan
Indian Independence Act
The independent character of
the Princely States, especially after the British departure from India, was
discussed in a Cabinet Meeting, which was also attended by Mountbatten on 20th
May 1947, in which The British Viceroy to India Lord
Mountbatten asserted that ‘as soon as Dominion Status was granted to
British India, paramountcy would come to an end. The states would then become
fully independent and would be free to negotiate new arrangements if they
thought it desirable to do so’ 1
Furthermore, Mountbatten in his
speech to Chamber of Princes on 25th July 1947 explained
to the Princes the position of the States after the lapse of Paramountcy: ‘the
Indian Independence Act releases the states from all their obligations to the
Crown. The states will have complete freedom – technically and legally they
become independent’. 2
Apart from that the man who
was seeking a separate homeland for Muslims and demanding a division of India,
Mohammed Ali Jinnah also believed that the Two Nations Theory did not apply to
the Princely Stats. Mr. Jinnah categorically asserted that the states were fully
entitled to refuse to join either of the constituent assemblies. Mr. Jinnah, in
a press statement on 17th June 1947, declared that:
‘After the lapse of
paramountcy, the Indian states would be, constitutionally and legally,
sovereign states and free to adopt for themselves any course they wished. It is
open to the states to join the Hindustan Constituent Assembly or to decide to
remain independent. In my opinion they are free to remain independent if they
so desire’.
This clearly demonstrates
that the Two Nations Theory did not apply to the Princely States; and Mohammed
Ali Jinnah practically proved that by accepting accession of Junagarr State
which had a Muslim Ruler but vast majority of his subjects were non Muslims.
Apart from that he supported Ruler of Hyderabad’s right to remain independent,
even though this Princely State had two thirds non Muslim Majority; and if
rules of the Two Nations Theory were applicable to the Princely States then
Junagarr and Hyderabad would have automatically joined India.
What this proves is that
after the end of the British Raj in India, when the British Paramountcy lapsed
on 15 August 1947, the State of Jammu and Kashmir emerged as a sovereign State
with a right to conduct its own foreign affairs. The Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir
concluded a Standstill Agreement with newly established state of Pakistan; and
made a similar offer to India.
Independence of Jammu and
Kashmir did not lost for too long because of two big hostile neighbours. On 22
October 1947, Pakistan violated the Standstill Agreement and managed a tribal
invasion of Kashmir (for details see my book: Tribal Invasion and Kashmir). In
order to save his throne and the country he asked for help from India, which
was only made available after the accession which was provisionally accepted.
On the morning of 27 October
1947, the Indian forces landed in Srinagar, and the subsequent war between
India and Pakistan divided the state of Jammu and Kashmir; and which remains
forcibly divided to date and people suffer on both sides of the divide.
Despite the respective
claims of India and Pakistan, the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir is
disputed. It is not legally part of India, Pakistan or china. All areas are
occupied and the forces of these countries are stationed there against our
will. Hitherto, there were only three parties to the dispute, namely India,
Pakistan and people of Jammu and Kashmir. China, despite its occupation of JK
territory, is not considered as a party to the dispute. However, over the
years, mainly due to weakening position of Pakistan, government of Pakistan and
some Kashmiri leaders have made efforts to make China part of the Kashmir
dispute, which would be disastrous for Jammu and Kashmir and the entire region.
Even though it is people of
Jammu and Kashmir who continue to suffer, and it is they who are the main party
to the dispute, the sad thing is the both occupying countries have never
included people of JK part of any negotiations.
We had no say in the UN
Security Council, and all the Resolutions are against our will. The UNCIP
Resolution of 5 January 1947 truncated our right to self determination. What we
have is a right of accession and not right to self determination. The Shimla
Agreement of 1972 has practically made the Kashmir dispute a bilateral dispute;
and the UN Resolutions are only mentioned by Pakistan and some Kashmiri leaders
to fool their audience.
There could be no peace in
the Indian Sub Continent until the Kashmir dispute is resolved in accordance
with the wishes of the people of Jammu and Kashmir; and India and Pakistan have
no right to decide our future. As long as the Kashmir dispute is there
unresolved, there will be powerful groups in Pakistan and elsewhere recruiting
people in name of Jihad and liberation of Kashmir, hence more violence and
destruction.
Kashmir and the people of
the region have seen too much violence and destruction. Gun and violence is not
the way forward, as that will further aggravate the situation. People want to
live in peace and harmony and the way forward is a process of dialogue
involving all parties to the dispute.
1. Cabinet Record 134/343, 1B (47) 26, 20th
May 1947, quoted in Mountbatten, by Ziegler, Phillip.
2. Full text of the speech, Rao, Guru Raj,
Legal Aspects of the Kashmir Problem, pages 190-194.
(You
can also quote from my book: Kashmir and the Partition of India (My Mphil
theses)
2- How do you think this conflict has disrupted peace in India?
Reply:
Although the partition of India on
communal lines and subsequent riots that killed more than half million people
embittered the relationship between the two countries; but it is believed that
with time the wound would have healed if it was not for the bitter rivalry over
the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The controversial Radcliffe Award ensured that
India also had a land access to Kashmir through Gurdaspur.
Both the Muslim League and the
Congress were competing with each other to win over the Maharaja of Jammu and
Kashmir. After the British Raj, both countries went to war with each other over
the control of Jammu and Kashmir. No country was in a position to win a
decisive victory against the other; and the UN arranged a Cease Fire which
became effective on 1 January 1949.
Despite the Cease Fire both countries
remained hostile to each other and their efforts to get Kashmir continued. For
decades the Kashmir dispute was a corner stone of their foreign policies; and
their bilateral relationship had been held hostage by this dispute.
The Kashmir dispute not only led to
more than war between the both competing countries it also promoted religious
extremism, hatred and violence, as people were persuaded to wage a jihad
against Hindu India. People of Pakistan, especially the people of Punjab, where
from the ruling elite belongs, are emotional about Kashmir and they wanted to
get Jammu and Kashmir for religious and strategic reasons. Also beauty and
natural resources of Kashmir were very important to them.
In my considered opinion the root
cause of instability in the Indian Sub Continent is because of the unresolved
Kashmir dispute. Also it is also the bone of contention between the two
countries, and main source of tension, competition arms race, hatred and extremism.
Pakistan justifies in keeping a large army and nuclear war heads and
sophisticated missile system because of animosity with India over Kashmir.
In view of this, it is imperative
that the Kashmir dispute is resolved through a process of dialogue, and by
taking appropriate steps to build confidence and increasing the area of
cooperation that a new era of friendship and cooperation could begin in South
Asia.
3- How do the people in Kashmir feel about this dispute?
Reply:
Jammu and Kashmir was a multi
religious and multi ethnic state with great civilisation, vibrant and tolerant
society. However, all this changed after the partition of India, and the tribal
invasion and forced division of the Jammu and Kashmir State. Furthermore the
Pakistani supported militancy mainly in the Valley of Kashmir has torn apart
the fabrics of this tolerant society and gave rise to religious intolerance,
hatred and violence.
Now the position is as follows:
·
So called Azad Kashmir 100% Muslim;
·
Gilgit Baltistan 100% Muslim, although different areas are occupied by
different sects of Islam;
·
From the Valley of Kashmir nearly all non Muslims were forced to leave
because of militancy; and the uprooted people live in Jammu and in India;
·
In Ladakh, Leh has non Muslim majority (Buddhists); and Kargil has
Muslim majority;
·
In Jammu there is non - Muslim majority with some districts having
Muslim majority.
Because of the forced division and
religious indoctrination people are divided on religious, ethnic and regional
lines. Also people are directly influenced by the propaganda of either India or
Pakistan and the political parties operating in both parts of the State.
Result of this is some people want to
join India, some want to join Pakistan and some want to become independent. Some
would even vote for the status quo. However, nearly all want to have Kashmiri
identity, culture and traditions preserved. If there was a vote held under an
impartial body like the UN with three choices, namely accession to India,
accession to Pakistan and an independent Jammu and Kashmir, many impartial
surveys have concluded that more than 70% will vote for the third option of
independence.
It is because of this both India and
Pakistan want to ensure that there is no third option available to the people
of Jammu and Kashmir; and that they are not part of any negotiations to resolve
the Kashmir dispute.
Whatever is the future of Jammu and
Kashmir, overwhelming majority of the people believe that the former Princely
State of Jammu and Kashmir is one political entity; and it must not be divided,
as it would lead to more extremism and intolerance in the region.
Also overwhelming majority of the
people believes there is no military solution to the dispute and that the
dispute must be resolved by a process of trilateral dialogue.
4- How the Kargil War affected India and Pakistan?
Reply:
Animosity and distrust between India
and Pakistan continued despite diplomatic relations and different pacts. Both
countries continued to work against each other and destabilise the other. Most
Pakistanis believed that India did not sincerely acknowledge the creation of
Pakistan; and all Pakistan’s energies were India centric, and to defend itself
from the giant neighbour.
In the late 1990s, the governments of
Nawaz Sharif and Atal
Behari Vajpayee decided to start a process of dialogue to resolve all outstanding
disputes including the Kashmir dispute. Both matured and pro peace Prime
Ministers came to the conclusion that the Indian Sub Continent needs peace and
not continued confrontation and hatred. So despite opposition from the powerful
anti peace lobbies both Prime Ministers continued with the confidence building
measures and the peace process.
In this regard a daring visit by Atal Behari Vajpayee
to Pakistan and Minar e Pakistan to demonstrate his sincerity that he wanted
peace in the region; and that India sincerely acknowledged existence of
Pakistan and did not want to destroy Pakistan.
While millions of people were dreaming of
peace in the sub continent and close cooperation between India and Pakistan,
the powerful Pakistan army and anti peace forces had other ideas. They wanted
to back stab the peace process and their elected Prime Minister by initiating
another military operation against India. This time they selected the heights
of Kargil and.
Sad thing is that while the civilian
government in Pakistan was busy in making plans for the peace, mutual trade and
cooperation a small group in the top ranks of the Pakistan army planned the
misadventure of Kargil, which killed the peace process and had a far reaching
negative impact on the India Pakistan relations. Because of the Kargil, the
trust level was at its lowest; and the Indian government and its establishment
felt they were betrayed; and that how could they trust the country which
initiates a military attack while signing a treaty of friendship and mutual
cooperation.
The Kargil adventure will go down as a
turning point in the history of the both countries; and will always be viewed
as a disastrous mistake that caused death and destruction and rolled back the
peace process. Also it strengthened the suspicions, mistrust and hatred. END
No comments:
Post a Comment