PAKISTAN HAS NOT CREATED ANY GOOD
ATMOSPHERE IN KASHMIR
At a time when militants have struck the valley, leading to deaths of
local policemen (many of them Muslims), but nonetheless, our minister General
VK Singh graced a Pakistan Day function, and when a certain section of Kashmiri
Muslims is violently protesting against the return of those from the Hindu
minority displaced from the valley (though there is also a vocal section
of Kashmiri Muslims opposing such communalists in their midst), it
becomes necessary to reflect on the statement of the current chief minister
Mufti Muhammad Sayeed as to whether Pakistan and the militants created a good
atmosphere in the valley during the latest state elections. In fact, this piece
seeks not only to rebut what Mufti specifically said, but to debunk the notion
that Pakistan has ever played any positive role in the resolution of the
Kashmir issue, except perhaps on some very rare occasions, but even on those
occasions, the Pakistani state was never a monolith in this regard. No, I am
not attempting at engaging in anti-Pakistan hate-mongering, but to clear the
historical record, and my stand on how Indians should view Pakistan has been
spelt out in some detail in this article,
and that is not the focus here. I may also clarify that India hasn’t been fully
clean when it comes to the Kashmir issue, as I have discussed inthis article,
but that is not the focus here.
Let us begin the story from when the “Kashmir issue”, as we know it,
began. To start with, it was the Pakistani establishment that tried to
coercively capture the erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, which had
been a part of Britain’s Chamber of Princes in undivided India (unlike Nepal,
Bhutan and Balochistan), and the Pakistani tribesmen and soldiers raped and
plundered people of all faiths, though the Hindu minority of Kashmir was
particularly targeted. The claim of the Pakistani and pro-Pakistan
propagandists that the invasion was legitimate, for Jammu and Kashmir was a
Muslim-majority province with a Hindu ruler, with the Muslim majority
unanimously desirous of joining Pakistan, to start with, is dubious. Why do I
say so? To examine this, let me cite certain passages from a book Kashmir:
The Unwritten History by Australian strategic analyst Christopher
Snedden, which is, by no means, pro-India on the whole and has been hailed by
many Kashmiri separatists (some of the excerpts are lengthy but definitely make
an interesting read and are highly relevant to the topic)-
“despite the fact that J&K had a Muslim-majority population, the
political inclinations of the people of J&K were far more complex and
uncertain” (page 10)
“neither India nor Pakistan was guaranteed majority popular support”
(page 12)
“J&K was politically disunited by forces that had strong- and
differing- post-British desires for the princely state's status.” (page 27)
“Despite J&K’s inherent disunity, Hari Singh’s accession would have
been much simpler had Muslims in J&K been united in their desire for the
state’s future status. Indeed, Muslim disunity is one of the most
significant explanations of why the so-called Kashmir dispute began – and
continues.” (page 35)
“…the core of the problem in J&K was its people. They were ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse, diffuse and different; they lacked religious and political unity; they were divided in their aspirations for J&K’s future international status.” (pages 35, 36)
“An important trait evident among Kashmiris partially explains why Kashmiri Muslims were ambivalent about Pakistan in 1947. Called ‘Kashmiriness’ or ‘Kashmiriyat’, a newer term with Perso-Arabic roots, this trait was a fundamental and apparently long-held part of Kashmiri identity and culture. Kashmiriness emphasises ‘the acceptance and tolerance of all religions among Kashmiris’. It is ‘manifested in the solidarity of different faiths and ethnic groups in the state’. The concept was apparently epitomized by the patron saint of Kashmir, Sheikh Noor-ud-Din, a Muslim born in 1375 of a Hindu convert to Islam. Popularly known as Nund Rishi, he repeatedly poses a question in a poem; ‘How can members of the same family jeer at one another?’ The answer is the essence of Kashmiriness; Kashmiris, whoever they are and whatever their religious backgrounds and practices, are all members of one indivisible Kashmir Valley ‘family’. It is a recipe – or even a requirement – for tolerance.
One significant consequence of Kashmiriness was that, compared with
Hindus and Muslims in Jammu or northern India, Kashmiri Muslims and Kashmiri
Hindus (Pandits) had relatively few social divisions or antagonisms.
While they nevertheless had disputes and rivalries, the two groups generally
were more liberal and more tolerant and, in many cases, had amicable, even
close relations. This harmony arose because both shared the same
ethnicity, language and geographical region and the same recent history under
repressive rulers comprising Muslim Afghans (Durranis), Punjabi Sikhs (Ranjit
Singh’s empire) and Jammu Hindus (Dogras), although the latter was less
repressive for Pandits. It was important that Kashmiri Muslims and
Kashmiri Pandits also enjoyed a similar culture, including revering each
other’s religious figures and festivals, eating halal mutton instead of beef or
pork (even though Pandits were of the Brahmin or priestly caste that elsewhere
usually practised vegetarianism), and not being particular about ‘defilement or
pollution by touch’. As a leading Pandit put it, ‘Racially,
culturally and linguistically the Hindus and Muslims living in Kashmir [were]
practically one’. That said, Kashmiri Pandits also enjoyed greater
influence and economic wellbeing than Kashmiri Muslims. This was due to
the Pandits’ position as Hindu subjects of a Hindu ruler, from which flowed
benefits such as being landowners and their numerically large involvement as
state employees. Nevertheless, relations between Kashmiri Muslims and
Kashmiri Pandits generally were far more amicable than the relations between
Hindu and Muslims in Jammu Province.
One significant result of the concept of Kashmiriness was that Kashmiris
may have been naturally attracted to secular thinking. This was partly
because they were apparently nor afflicted by the ‘majority-minority complex’
that was evident among Muslims in other parts of the subcontinent, and partly
because they were ‘a deeply religious people who abhor[red] politically exploitation
of their faith. Hence, the pro-Pakistan stance of the major pro-Pakistan
party in J&K, the Muslim Conference, and its Pakistan ally the Muslim
League was not automatically popular with Kashmiri Muslims. To join
Pakistan simply because it would be a Muslim homeland was an insufficient
reason.” (pages 18-20)
“A further factor that caused Kashmiris to be ambivalent about Pakistan was the significant role played in 1947 by Sheikh Abdullah and the political party that he dominated, the National Conference. Abdullah’s role in J&K is very important. For over fifty years (1931-82), he was Muslim Kashmiris’ most popular politician, whether in power or denied it. (Abdullah was jailed for long periods by the Maharaja, by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, his successor as Prime Minister in J&K, and by the Indian Government). According to his autobiography, Abdullah’s political career began as early as 1926, when he joined the ‘relentless struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed’ and, desiring the become the people’s savior, began to oppose the Maharaja’s regime and its practices on an individual basis. He disliked a number of the Maharaja’s practices, including discrimination on religious grounds, exploitation of the people through taxation, corruption, the inequitable land system, and the people’s lack of political freedom. Abdullah sprang to prominence in 1931 during the major anti-Maharaja agitation in Srinagar, and event of ‘seminal importance’ that temporarily – but severely – challenged Hari Singh’s rule. Indeed, it was due to Abdullah’s bold part in this uprising that he became known as the Lion of Kashmir. A further consequence of this major uprising was that, as a result of the Glancy Commission formed in order to investigate the uprising’s causes, the Maharaja allowed the formation of the first political party in J&K. In October 1932, the All J&K Muslim Conference was formed in order to safeguard Muslim interest in J&K. Abdullah, a Muslim, later remained this party the All J&K National Conference. Espousing secularism, it would later play a significant role in delivering a large part of J&K to India and in ending the Maharaja’s rule.
“A further factor that caused Kashmiris to be ambivalent about Pakistan was the significant role played in 1947 by Sheikh Abdullah and the political party that he dominated, the National Conference. Abdullah’s role in J&K is very important. For over fifty years (1931-82), he was Muslim Kashmiris’ most popular politician, whether in power or denied it. (Abdullah was jailed for long periods by the Maharaja, by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, his successor as Prime Minister in J&K, and by the Indian Government). According to his autobiography, Abdullah’s political career began as early as 1926, when he joined the ‘relentless struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed’ and, desiring the become the people’s savior, began to oppose the Maharaja’s regime and its practices on an individual basis. He disliked a number of the Maharaja’s practices, including discrimination on religious grounds, exploitation of the people through taxation, corruption, the inequitable land system, and the people’s lack of political freedom. Abdullah sprang to prominence in 1931 during the major anti-Maharaja agitation in Srinagar, and event of ‘seminal importance’ that temporarily – but severely – challenged Hari Singh’s rule. Indeed, it was due to Abdullah’s bold part in this uprising that he became known as the Lion of Kashmir. A further consequence of this major uprising was that, as a result of the Glancy Commission formed in order to investigate the uprising’s causes, the Maharaja allowed the formation of the first political party in J&K. In October 1932, the All J&K Muslim Conference was formed in order to safeguard Muslim interest in J&K. Abdullah, a Muslim, later remained this party the All J&K National Conference. Espousing secularism, it would later play a significant role in delivering a large part of J&K to India and in ending the Maharaja’s rule.
Because Sheikh Abdullah had a strong aversion to autocracy, he regarded
the concept of Pakistan negatively. Abdullah disliked the Maharaja
absolutism. The United States’ Consul in Lahore agreed: saying,
‘according to all disinterested informants [the Maharaja] has never displayed
the slightest interest in the welfare of the people over whom he has maintained
an autocratic rule. For Sheikh Abdullah, both Jinnah and the Islamic
Pakistan that the autocratic Muslim League leader envisaged establishing were also
unappealing. The influential Kashmiri leader considered that Pakistan was
the result of an emotional Muslim reaction of Hindu communalism and ‘an
escapist device’. Abdullah and his colleagues, many of whom were Muslims,
also received (correctly) that Pakistan would be dominated by feudal elements,
as well as being a society in which Kashmiris and their reform agenda would
have little power: ‘Chains of slavery will keep us in their continuous
strangehold. Conversely, Abdullah considered that secular India would be
different. I would have people and parties, including India’s major
party, the Indian National Congress, whose views largely coincided with
Abdullah and his party. India also represented an option that would accept the
National Conference’s enlightened and progressive ideas’. It embraced
more democracy that either Pakistan or the Jinnah-dominated Muslim League,
‘whose leader had a very high opinion of himself’.” (page 21)
Speaking of the pro-Pakistan Muslim Conference formed in 1941, Snedden says-
“…the Muslim Conference faced a major challenge in the numerically and politically important Kashmir Valley; it lacked a charismatic Kashmiri-speaking politician who could rival Sheikh Abdullah and his coterie of Kashmiri colleagues. The Muslim Conference’s stance also was unpopular elsewhere, especially among the non-Muslim majority in eastern Jammu, as its killings of Muslims were clearly showing.” (page 24)
“Although Jinnah (falsely) believed that J&K would fall into
Pakistan’s ‘lap like a ripe fruit’ once the Maharaja realized his and the
people’s interests and acceded to Pakistan, and although he was prepared to
allow the Maharaja’s ‘autocratic government’ to continue, support for
independence enabled pro-Pakistan forces to woo the decision maker rather than
the people. This approach was pragmatic. However, it also made the
Muslim Conference appear keen to gain the Maharaja’s support at any cost.
And although this tactic adhered to Jinnah’s statement in July 1947 that
princely rulers were free to join Pakistan, India or remain independent, many
Muslin Conference members wanted their party’s support for independence
reversed. Also, by allowing the ruler to decide the issue, the Muslim
Conference enabled its National Conference rival to advance the populist – and
eminently mire ‘sellable’ – view that the people should be given
self-government so that, ‘armed with authority and responsibility, [they] could
decide for themselves where their interests lay’. Apart from advancing
its own popularity, the National Conference’s stance also served to reveal the
Muslim Conference as simply an appendage or surrogate of the Muslim League – as
it was.
The Muslim Conference’s pragmatic approach towards the Maharaja built on a previous stance Jinnah instigated during the National Conference’s ‘Quit Kashmir’ campaign that started on 20 May 1946 with the aim of ridding J&K of Dogra rule. This campaign was significant between the positions of Jinnah and Nehru on J&K. Jinnah opposed Quit Kashmir as a movement ‘engineered by some malcontents’. This stance, coupled with his lack of criticism of J&K’s unpopular ruler, particularly when compared with criticisms made by Nehru and the Indian National Congress, made Jinnah appear pro-Maharaja. This lost the Muslim League leader support among Kashmiri Muslims, especially among the ‘malcontents’, most of whom were National Conference members. Indeed, one such National Conference member, Mir Qasim (who later became the Chief Minister of Indian J&K), believed that Jinnah’s unpopular and insensitive attitude ‘killed the chances of Kashmir going to Pakistan’. The Muslim Conference lost credibility because it did not initially oppose the Maharaja when Quit Kashmir commenced in May 1946 – a policy Jinnah ordered because he believed that the party would do better working through constitutional channels.” (page 26)
“…the Muslim Conference appeared to be steadily lose support, certainly in the Kashmir Valley, owing to poor leadership and increased factionalism; conversely, support for the National Conference increased because it was united and had strong leadership.” (page 27)
I may add to this that Jinnah, in his visit to Kashmir in 1941, received much hostility from sections of Kashmiri Muslims and conceded that he did not get unanimous support. To add to that, when he sent an envoy to Kashmir in 1943 to assess whether Kashmiris would be willing to join Pakistan, his envoy gave him a response, which, to use the language of acclaimed historian Alex von Tunzelmann, was "disheartening" (The Indian Summer, p. 284). Jinnah tried to play his own politics in Kashmir, using the minister Ramchandra Kak, a Kashmiri Hindu, as a Trojan horse, but failed, and you can read about the same here.
It may be added that Shaikh Abdullah continued to be popular with Kashmiri Muslims after his having taken a stand in favour of India and after the Dogra monarchy was displaced, Abdullah ensured that land reforms were carried out by abolishing landlordism and giving peasants ownership over land, which won him tremendous affection from the people of the valley. Pakistan had retained the feudal system of landlordism, as it still has, and many Kashmiri Muslims realized that the land reforms in Kashmir were possible owing to Kashmir being a part of India rather than Pakistan. To quote the noted scholar Michael Brecher from his book The Struggle for Kashmir-
“The vast majority of Kashmiris have benefited from these reforms and many of those interviewed by the author expressed the feat that in Pakistan, where no comparable land reforms have taken place, the land recently given to them might be returned to the landlords or, in any event, that further implementation of the 'New Kashmir' programme will be impossible.” (cited in the 2002 paperback edition of MJ Akbar's book Kashmir - Beyond the Vale on page 139)
Abdullah had clearly stated in the context of Pakistan-
“The most powerful argument which can be advanced in her favour is that
Pakistan is a Muslim State, and, a big majority of our people being Muslims the
State must accede to Pakistan. This claim of being a Muslim State is of
course only a camouflage. It is a screen to dupe the common man, so that
he may not see clearly that Pakistan is a feudal state in which a clique is
trying by these methods to maintain itself in power...” (cited in the 2002
paperback edition of MJ Akbar's book Kashmir - Beyond the Vale on
page 139)
Even today, there are Kashmiri Muslims, including those who want their region to be an independent country, who acknowledge that back then, Abdullah had made the right decision by opting for India. As one such person has articulated-
“The first question that comes to mind is would the Pakistani establishment quash the Feudal or Zamindari systems in Kashmir handing the land over to the tillers? Do keep in mind that even today Pakistan is a feudal society with most of the land in the hands of the Punjabi Chaudhrys. I mean all that the Kashmiri Hindus and Dogra land owners had to do was convert to Islam and just like the Punjabi Chaudhrys of Pakistan continue with the feudal system.”
He further says-
“Now picture yourself as a common Kashmiri filling the chillum of a Punjabi Pakistani Chaudhry or that of a Kashmiri Hindu/Dogra Feudal lord with tobacco and ask yourself this question.............how smart was Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah?”
And by the way, Islam as a religion emphasizes socioeconomic egalitarianism and the first land reforms in world history were carried out by the caliph Hazrat Umar Bin Khattab, and so, it is particularly shameful that Pakistan, calling itself an Islamic state, still has an institutionalized zamindari system, as Pakistani liberal Hasan Nisar points out!
However, coming back to Kashmir, the pointers raised as
justifications for Pakistan’s armed actions either take the form of
whataboutism with respect to India’s stand on the Muslim-ruled, Hindu-majority
Hyderabad and Junagadh, or cite the pro-Pakistan rebellion in Poonch before the
Pathan tribal raid (the latter point became popular to cite after Snedden’s
book mentioned it).
The Poonch rebellion does go to show that the Dogra king was unpopular
among his subjects, but that is something already acknowledged by Indians and
Pakistanis alike. From the Indian point of view, Jawaharlal Nehru’s trips to
Kashmir in which he peacefully took on the monarchy and even faced arrest in
the princely state are well-known. But when he assumed the role of India’s
prime minister, Nehru did not engage in such adventures and did not interfere,
at least blatantly, in the internal affairs of Jammu and Kashmir, which would
amount to disrespecting sovereignty.
It may have very well been legitimate for the pro-Pakistan Muslims of
Poonch to rise in armed revolt against their king, just as it may have been
legitimate for the pro-India Shaikh Abdullah to lead peaceful movements against
the monarchy in the valley (and Shaikh Abdullah’s mass struggle had a history
predating the Poonch rebellion in 1947), but how do these become the starting
point of what we conventionally understand as the “Kashmir issue” involving
India, Pakistan and the people of the (now erstwhile) princely state? And if
the Poonch rebellion is indeed taken as the starting point, it can only be on
two grounds - the first being that these rebels wanted accession to Pakistan
[in Snedden’s words-“The only way the Maharaja could possibly appease Poonch
Muslims would be to accede to Pakistan; they would not have settled for
anything less.” (page 32)] and the second being that there were elements in
Pakistan thatsupported the rebellion. To quote from Snedden’s
interview given to Tehelka correspondent Baba Umar (who
is a Kashmiri separatist and happens to be an acquaintance of mine)-“there was
some degree of support from the Pakistan government”.
Let us examine both points one by one. As regards Poonch Muslims wanting
accession to Pakistan, this hardly goes very far in suggesting that the
majority of the populace in the whole of the erstwhile princely state of Jammu
and Kashmir favoured accession to Pakistan, as the excerpts from not only
Snedden’s book but even other sources stated above, demonstrate.
So, even if the Muslims of Poonch were united in
the demand for the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan, the people (even
Muslims) of the entire princely state were not, and indeed, it has been no
one’s case that there wasn’t a pro-Pakistan section among the people of the
erstwhile princely state, but Snedden himself concedes that it cannot be said
with certainty as to what the aspirations of the majority of the populace were.
Hence, Pakistan’s case for claiming Jammu and Kashmir solely on the basis of its
Muslim majority falls flat, as opposed to India’s case for a majority of people
in the princely states of Hyderabad and Junagadh desiring to join India, which
was proved by subsequent plebiscites. The hurdle in the plebiscite in Jammu and
Kashmir came not from India, which had already promised the Kashmiris a
plebiscite, but Pakistan, which, in violation of the 1948 UN resolution,
refused to withdraw its troops from the part of the erstwhile princely state it
had occupied in the 1947-48 war following the Pashtun tribal raid, which, as
per the resolution, was a precursor to the plebiscite. Nehru had, in fact, gone
on record even later to say that he was willing to follow the UN resolution (i.e.
conduct the plebiscite) in the whole of the erstwhile princely state if
Pakistan complied with the precondition of withdrawing its troops, as can be
seen from this video (watch
1:58 onwards). Now, it must be mentioned that many Kashmiri separatists who
haven’t read the UN resolution and just know that it calls for a plebiscite
often invoke the UN resolution, but when made to realize that the resolution is
not exactly what they claim it to be, their entire stance changes to ridiculing
international law itself being irrelevant and a conspiracy of Western powers, a
stance diametrically opposite to the one they took before learning of what the
resolution entailed!
However, if they support self-determination as an
absolute right, which is to say that any part of any country should be
unilaterally allowed to secede at will, would they support any household
declaring itself as a separate country and not paying taxes, desiring to have
diplomatic relations with their country, or any district of the independent
Jammu and Kashmir they envisage to secede at will? Pray, quite the contrary,
their leaders do not wish to give Hindu-majority Jammu and Buddhist-majority
Ladakh that right in the independent country they envisage! And speaking of
Pakistanis and those who are pro-Pakistan, given the secessionist voices in
Sindh and the secessionist or pro-Afghanistan voices in Khyber Pakhtoonwa, are
they willing to conduct plebiscites in these particular provinces?
Also, when Shaikh Abdullah had later started vacillating in the 1950s between Kashmir being a part of India with some autonomy, and being an independent country altogether (Pakistan was still not an option for him, and a reason for vacillating from his firm pro-India stance was his concern over Hindu majoritarianism in India, which had manifested itself even in the killing of Mahatma Gandhi), and Nehru had him imprisoned, Nehru did, on the other hand, again offer Pakistan a plebiscite! To be quote the eminent writer MJ Akbar on this point, from his highly acclaimed book Kashmir – Behind the Vale (2002 paperback edition)-
“Within a fortnight of arresting Abdullah for asking too much of Delhi,
Jawaharlal Nehru completely reversed India’s position and offered Pakistan a
plebiscite!
The Prime Minister of Pakistan, now Mohammad Ali, came to Delhi on an
official visit. In the talks Nehru suggested that after the two Prime
Ministers had finalized the preliminary issues, a plebiscite administrator
could be named by April 1954. He even told Mohammad Ali that voting could
be done in the whole state rather than separate Hindu & Muslim regions, and
if this meant the loss of the whole Valley, he was prepared for it! The
offer was confirmed in a letter to Mohammad Ali on 3 September.” (page 154)
“The only condition Nehru placed was that the American UN nominee
Admiral Nimitz be replaced ad Plebiscite Administrator by someone form a
smaller country. Deeply suspicious of the US, he did not want this
superpower’s hand in the plebiscite.” (page 154)
“If there were any doubts about Nehru’s sincerity in those years about the plebiscite commitment, then surely they should have ended with this proposal.” (page 154)
“If there were any doubts about Nehru’s sincerity in those years about the plebiscite commitment, then surely they should have ended with this proposal.” (page 154)
Akbar further mentions how Pakistan’s insistence on the US admiral led
Nehru to withdraw the offer. For more on how Pakistan sought to avoid a
plebiscite, see this.
In fact, Pakistan's stand was always to go purely by the will of the
ruler, by virtue of which it had sought to engage Hindu-majority princely
states like Hyderabad, Junagadh, and even Jodhpur and Jaisalmer (in Jodhpur and
Jaisalmer, even the rulers were Hindu, unlike Hyderabad and Junagadh) to join
it. It had never basically adopted the principle of a plebiscite, to begin
with.
Speaking of the second point of how the Pakistani state machinery
supported or at least allowed non-state actors to support an armed rebellion in
Poonch, does acknowledging this help Pakistan’s case? Certainly not, as it would
amount to blatant disregard for international law! It is already embarassing
for the Pakistani state to admit that its non-state actors (Pashtuns) had
infiltrated into another territory! And on this point, we may delve a little
more into the legal status of the erstwhile princely state following India’s
independence. The princely states were, after the British government taking
control over India from the British East India Company, following the Revolt of
1857, no longer the subsidiary but sovereign powers they were prior to that but
subordinated officially to the British Crown, as Queen Victoria proclaiming
herself to be the Empress of India, demonstrated as also the Chamber of Princes
in New Delhi. However, once the British left India, the princely states
re-emerged as sovereign entities, with the lapse of British paramountcy as
becomes clear from Section 2 of the Indian
Independence Act, 1947, meeting all the four criteria established
under Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights
and Duties of States, which are stated hereunder verbatim-
(a) a permanent population;
(a) a permanent population;
(b) a defined territory;
(c) government;
and
(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
As regards the first three
clauses, little explanation is required. But if there’s any ambiguity about the
last one, mention may be made of the standstill agreements many of the princely
states entered into with India and Pakistan, which they were authorized to do
by the British. In this connection, those who understand Hindi can watch this video (from
11:12 to 13:06).
And Jammu and Kashmir had entered into a standstill agreement with
Pakistan (something that Snedden mentions in his book on page 9), which was
violated by the latter during the 1947 aggression. The very fact that the
princely states could voluntarily accede to any country again reflects their
sovereign character. However, the British had made it clear unofficially that
the princely states must opt for India or Pakistan. To quote Snedden on this
point-
“Powerbrokers in 1947 also were influenced by the method used to
decolonize Princely India (as against British-controlled India), whereby each
ruler was deemed to have the power – and, indeed, was expected – to accede to
either India or Pakistan. Princely states therefore were considered to be
indivisible and without any independent future. Neither the departing British
nor the future leaders of India and Pakistan sought partition of any princely
state along religious lines, nor would they countenance independence for any of
them. Instead, the British encouraged each princely ruler to consider
geographical factors and the will of his subjects in deciding his
accession. Even though the accession would clearly impact on all of the
prince’s subjects, nevertheless there were no legal requirements or popular
pressures for the ruler to consider either factor. He alone would decide
the accession. And, once it was decided, the expectation was that all of
his princely state would, along with the ruler, join the new dominion of his
choice.” (page 7)
While the British did convey to the princes that they must opt for India
or Pakistan [this is testified by great Indian nationalist leader Maulana
Azad’s account in his autobiography India Wins Freedom that as
early as in 1942, Sir Stafford Cripps, a British politician representing his
government, on a visit to India, “told the Maharaja of Kashmir that the future
of the States was with India”, that “(n)o prince should for a moment think that
the British Crown would come to his help if he decided to opt out” and
that “(t)he princes must therefore look up to the Indian Government and not the
British Crown for their future” (page 61 of the 2009 reprint) – the
demand for Pakistan wasn’t being seriously considered then; if Lord
Mountbatten's account as narrated to Larry Collins and Domique Lapierre in
their book Freedom at Midnight is true, then Mountbatten had
also tried hard to convice Raja Hari Singh to not entertain fancies of
independence], there was no legal obligation upon them to do so. Thus, legally,
it was for the ruler to decide and in this case, he opted for India, and Alistair
Lamb’s contention that the instrument of accession did not exist on paper has
now been disproved with the document being brought out in the public domain. If
the counterargument is made to run that popular support ought to have been the
basis, as was the case in Hyderabad and Junagadh, then the rebuttal to that has
already been stated above (i.e. that Pakistan did not withdraw its troops, and
having to do so was a precursor to the plebiscite), and it may be added that
Pakistan did not conduct any plebiscite while getting the ruler of Balochistan,
which, like Nepal and Bhutan, was not even legally a part of India, to
coercively sign the instrument of accession in its favour.
Thus, with all the emphasis given by Snedden to the Poonch rebellion, his
contention that it would suit Pakistan to highlight the same or that it, in any
way, tilts the narrative in its favour, is a flawed conclusion, even in the
light of much of what he has said in that very book! In fact, on the other
hand, the Pakistani narrative so far had only stressed the atrocities of the
king's army in Poonch (to justify the Pashtun tribal raid), trying to overlook
that they were armed rebels backed by the Pakistani state, and this fact
exposed by Snedden only makes Pakistan guilty of violating sovereignty, which
is the cornerstone of international law!
Other than the Poonch rebellion, Snedden has also highlighted that in Jammu, there were communal riots in 1947-1948 as a result of the partition of India, in which both Hindus and Muslims lost their lives (though Kashmir was largely free from such violence), but again, that only goes to show that there was a section of pro-Pakistan Muslims in the erstwhile princely state, and as we have discussed above, that is something no one denies and doesn’t take us very far. However, moving on from here, obviously, any sincere attempt at resolving the Kashmir issue would mean respecting the Line of Control as a de facto border, as India and Pakistan have officially agreed to, and seeking the path of negotiation for conflict resolution.
Other than the Poonch rebellion, Snedden has also highlighted that in Jammu, there were communal riots in 1947-1948 as a result of the partition of India, in which both Hindus and Muslims lost their lives (though Kashmir was largely free from such violence), but again, that only goes to show that there was a section of pro-Pakistan Muslims in the erstwhile princely state, and as we have discussed above, that is something no one denies and doesn’t take us very far. However, moving on from here, obviously, any sincere attempt at resolving the Kashmir issue would mean respecting the Line of Control as a de facto border, as India and Pakistan have officially agreed to, and seeking the path of negotiation for conflict resolution.
Next, let us take a further leap in history to 1965. When Operation
Gibraltar was launched by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, sending ISI agents to instigate
an armed rebellion in Kashmir, that can certainly not be taken to be
contributing to a conducive atmosphere, and that nefarious design failed.
Likewise, the incursion by Pakistani soldiers in regions like Kargil in 1999,
leading to a full-blown war, is something that cannot be appreciated either. In
fact, while the Indo-Pak war of 1971 is cited by Pakistanis as an Indian
attempt to partition their country, the fact is that even in that war was
initiated by Pakistan on India’s western front in Rajasthan (remember the
Battle of Longawala, shown in the movie ‘Border’?), as is conceded by Pakistani analysts
themselves. And yes, after the creation of Bangladesh, the Bihari
and other non-Bengali Muslims were not and still have not been given citizens’
rights in that country (though Bengali Hindus and Christians in Bangladesh do
have citizens’ rights), and Pakistan has not accepted those people identifying
themselves as Pakistanis as its citizens either, but wants to have Kashmir!
In fact, in the late 1960s, when a Kashmiri Muslim by the name of
Maqbool Bhat who wanted an independent Jammu and Kashmir, including the part
occupied by Pakistan, crossed the border and sought Pakistan’s help for an
armed rebellion he wished to engineer, they refused it, saying that he must
support the whole of the erstwhile princely state joining Pakistan, and
tortured him to that end, but he refused to accept that Kashmir should be a
part of a country under de facto military rule. When they
failed to convince him, they sent him to India, where he was subsequently
hanged! (However, his death sentence in India came only after some of his
comrades killed an Indian diplomat in Europe, and that murder must obviously be
condemned in the strongest terms.) So much for Pakistan genuinely respecting
the wishes of the Kashmiri people! While Maqbool Bhat is hailed as a hero by
most Kashmiri Muslims today, they would be surprised to learn that the strongly
pro-Pakistan section among them back then abhorred him so much that the
Jamaat-e-Islami in Kashmir expelled one of its members for protesting against
Bhat’s hanging!
Since the 1989, Pakistan has been encouraging militancy in Kashmir and
used the Hizbul Mujahidin, which supports Pakistan’s stance, to fight the JKLF
fighters who were desirous of an independent Kashmir and were also fighting the
Indian state. The militancy sponsored by Pakistani establishment is what has
led the Indian state to have its troops stationed even in civilian areas in
Kashmir, and life became worse for the common Kashmiri. More and more Kashmiri
Muslims are convinced that joining Pakistan would not be a good idea (something
acknowledged by Western analysts and
even Pakistani
analysts), sensing the instability of that country and the rise of
terrorism, the terrorists being those who were earlier to be utilized against
India. The terrorism has not been confined to the Kashmir valley alone, where
it has taken a toll on the Hindu minority, most of which has had to leave its
homeland (an Indian Muslim acquaintance of mine wrote a powerful piece for the
Pakistani media on this issue), but even many Kashmiri Muslims with a pro-India
political posturing, many of whom were also killed, and many of whom also left
the valley, but also elsewhere in India, such as the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, at
the behest of the ISI, which apparently made it impossible to have a genuine
resolution of the Kashmir issue, which democratic governments on both sides of
the border were aiming at (which is why I said that the Pakistani
establishment, even if having well-meaning elements, has never acted as a
monolith on this score). Even until recently, village headmen in the valley
were killed for contesting elections under the Indian constitutional setup! And
so much for Mufti’s expression of gratitude, there were indeed instances of
militancy during the latest state elections in J&K too,
that took the lives of Kashmiri policemen and civilians (it is noteworthy that local Kashmiri
Muslim policemen have played a crucial role in the fight against militancy,
which must be acknowledged and even appreciated) and thereafter as well. Not
too long ago, in October 2014, we had Musharraf, someone with political
aspirations and who is credited with having lowed militant infiltration during
his tenure, say that
Pakistan is ready for war with India over Kashmir!
Next, it may be useful to examine what some rational Pakistanis
themselves make of the “Kashmir obsession” of some of their countrymen. These
articles/videos -https://www.facebook.com/iconoclast999/posts/10153181468487873?fref=nf,http://nation.com.pk/blogs/21-Feb-2015/why-do-pakistanis-love-kashmir andhttp://tribune.com.pk/story/202209/time-to-forget-kashmir/,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17B5e9s_zZc,
are worth a read in this context.
This article would be incomplete without acknowledging the problems of
people in POK, which can be read about in these articles - http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/insights/insight990902.html , http://www.weeklyvoice.com/south-asian-news/pakistani-kashmiris-struggle-under-islamabads-azad-kashmir/,http://www.pressforpeace.org.uk/Gilgit-Baltistan/Baba-Jan andhttp://www.lfpress.com/2013/06/13/fatah-west-must-wake-up-to-aggressive-sino-pak-partnership.
As I stated at the outset, this piece was meant to make a summary of the historical record, and I hope that it has served that purpose well.
As I stated at the outset, this piece was meant to make a summary of the historical record, and I hope that it has served that purpose well.
No comments:
Post a Comment