Maharaja Hari Singh, last Ruler of
an independent Jammu and Kashmir
Dr Shabir Choudhry 10 October 2016
I am grateful to ‘Voice
of Dogras’ for inviting me to speak on the occasion of birthday of Maharaja
Hari Singh, the last Ruler of an independent Jammu and Kashmir State. This
function is to be held in the British Parliament on 10 October 2016.
Due to family
commitments, I am unable to personally take part in this important function;
however, I promised Madam Manu Khajuria, Chair of ‘Voice of Dogras’ that I will
send my message in writing.
Chair, Friends and
colleagues
All those who have
made some contribution to history are controversial people; and Maharaja Hari
Singh is no exception to this. The fact that he is a controversial figure is
tantamount to acknowledging that he has made some contribution to the history
of Jammu and Kashmir and the region; and which is still considered to be
significant.
Critics of Maharaja
Hari Singh
Maharaja Hari
Singh’s critics could be characterised as follows:
1/ People of the
Valley of Kashmir erroneously think they are the chosen people; and people
belonging to other regions of the State of Jammu and Kashmir are inferior to
them. Since Maharaja Hari Singh belonged to Jammu, they never accepted him as an
equal, or even a ‘Kashmiri’, hence the Quit Kashmir Movement against the
Maharaja, at a crucial time when important decisions were being made in whole
of the Indian Sub Continent.
At this important
juncture of history, people and the ruling elite of Jammu and Kashmir must have
been on the same page to safeguard interests of the Jammu and Kashmir State;
alas some political aspirants had other ideas which were detrimental to the
interests of the State.
2/ Muslims of the
State, in Particular Muslims of the Valley of Kashmir regarded him as a ‘biased’
Hindu Dogra; and examined his Rule from religious perspective. Most literature
against the Dogra rule or Hari Singh was produced by the Muslims of the Valley
which had religious and regional bias.
This literature, to
a large extent, had inbuilt bias against Hari Singh and his administration; and
many people of Pakistan, Pakistani occupied Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and the
Kashmir Valley were and still are influenced by that literature.
3/ Other critics of
Hari Singh view his administration in the light of the Western democracies of
21st century. Little they know what were the political, economic and
social conditions of the people in the British India, and especially in the
Princely India. All these approaches to evaluate his rule and his legacy are
wrong, as they will reach wrong conclusions.
Was he a communal
Ruler?
We have to analyse
his rule and achievements under the prevailing political, economic and social
conditions of that time. Moreover, we should examine his administration as a
Ruler of a multi religious and multi ethnic State; and not as a follower of a
particular religion.
He may not appear a
democrat, especially if we see his rule in the light of democracy we see in
Britain or in the Western Europe; but he was far ahead of other Princely Rulers
of India. He was the first Ruler to grant Assembly to the people of Jammu and
Kashmir.
Among the biggest
criticism against the Maharaja Hari Singh are events which culminated in to the
tragic event of 13 July 1931, in which more than 21 innocent citizens got
killed and injured. And because of these events people label him as ‘anti
Muslim’. His officials could have been too harsh with Muslims, and there were
heavy taxes imposed on Muslims, which generated resentment and hatred against
his rule, especially in 1947 when religious sentiments were running very high.
But is it not true
that officials even in 21st Century democracies, at times, treat
people harshly and exhibit anti certain community actions? Are we not
complaining about taxes and high prices on various items used in everyday life
in 21st century? In other words people always complain about
inequality and unfair treatment in every society. This is not to suggest that
officials of the Maharaja were pious people and they were not biased or
oppressive. Muslim subjects strongly felt that they were treated unfairly and
that they were burdened with heavy taxes which resulted in resentment and anti
Dogra sentiments.
Anyhow, before we comment
on the events in which Muslim sentiments were very seriously injured, thinking
people need to see why these four incidents happened at that particular time.
No one can trace any such incidents before 1930/31 or after this.
Then question
arises why these events happened at that time. Why sentiments of Muslims were
hurt. Can people remember there was a Round Table Conference in London in 1930?
This is where the British asked the Maharaja to lease areas of Gilgit to the
British that they could check the Soviet Russia’s activities from there.
As a loyal son of
the soil, the Maharaja refused. The British made it apparent that they did not
like this rather rebellious attitude of the Maharaja Hari Singh; and that there
would be a political price for this.
At that time Prime
Minister of Jammu and Kashmir was a British gentleman called Mr Wakefield. His
services could be utilized to teach Hari Singh a lesson, hence four communal
incidents in which Muslim sentiments were very profoundly hurt. Colonel Tej K Tikoo, commented in the
following words:
‘Clipping the
Maharaja’s wings would serve their immediate purpose. Besides, it would serve
its other strategic purpose; coerce him to submit to the British demand for
lease of Gilgit, the all important strategic outpost in the Great Game.’ The Prime
Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Wakefield, ‘was ideally placed to implement the
conspiracy on the ground’. 1
It looks he completed his task effectively.
These communal
events, bad and undesirable as they were, were orchestrated systematically to
inflame religious passions of Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir and in the British
India. They held the Maharaja Hari Singh responsible for these communal events,
and were determined to overthrow him. In this struggle, Muslims of Punjab were
supporting them.
It
is true, the Muslims were politically suppressed and economically strangled,
but was that not the case in the rest of India too; and there were other
reasons why they were behind, one reason was their refusal to learn English and
lack of cooperation with the British who were, at that time, masters of India.
Abdul
Qadeer was an employee of an English army officer, who was on holiday in
Kashmir, staying in a house boat in the Nasim Bagh. When the Muslims were
killed as a result of firing, and their passions were running very high. When
the crowd was emotionally charged, out of nowhere, Abdul Qadeer Khan appeared
on the scene and delivered a powerful speech to inflame passions of the
Kashmiri Muslims. He said:
‘Muslim
brethren! The time has now come when we should meet force by greater force to
put an end to the tyrannies and brutalities to which you are subjected; nor
will they solve the issues of disrespect to Holy Quran to your satisfaction.
You must rely upon your own strength and wage a relentless war against
oppression’. Pointing his finger towards the palace, he thundered: ‘Raze it to
the ground’. 2
Abdul
Qadeer Khan was arrested and imprisoned, but not many people know that under
the pressure of the British he was released secretly. Important point was he
came, played his role brilliantly, created the chaos which the British wanted;
and disappeared.
Glancy
Commission
After
the tragic killings of 13 July, The All India Kashmir Committee was established
to support Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir and lobby the British on their behalf.
They conducted a successful campaign to exert pressure on the British to
intervene to stop the killing of innocent people. Due to internal and external
pressure the Maharaja appointed a Commission, which was known as the Glancy
Commission.
The
Commission had the task of looking into the grievances of the community groups
in the State, particularly the Muslims, who had serious complaints against the
Government. The Maharaja also promised that once the Commission had completed
its task, he would hold a conference under the chairmanship of Mr. Glancy, to
consider constitutional reforms.
The
Commission completed its task and presented the report on 22nd March
1932, and made 12 recommendations, of which these are the important ones:
- That certain Muslim religious shrines should
be restored to Muslims;
- Complete religious liberty should be enjoyed
by every class and community;
- A special inspector of Mohammedan education
should be appointed and the number of Muslim teachers increased;
- All communities should receive a fair share
of Government appointments;
- All vacancies should be properly advertised;
- There should be decentralised power so that
ministers could function properly;
- Certain taxes should be abolished and
industrial development should receive the urgent attention of the
Government.
Conclusion
In my opinion Hari
Singh was a true nationalist. His vision and care for his subjects could be
seen from the fact that in order to protect interests of his subjects he
introduced State Subject Laws in 1927, that no non Kashmiri can buy any land in
Jammu and Kashmir.
It is sad to note
that whereas, India, by and large, has respected State Subject Laws, Pakistan
has openly contravened these laws, especially in Gilgit Baltistan where tens of
thousands of Pakistanis have settled; and a large areas of the region are
leased to rich Pakistanis who are plundering our natural resources.
He exhibited
statesmanship by dealing and having very tough negotiations with great and
clever leaders of that time, for example, people like Mohammed Ali Jinnah,
Pandit Nehru, Mahtama Gandhi, Mountbatten, and Sheikh Abdullah etc. He must
have had strong nerves to put up with the pressure of Muslim League, Indian
National Congress, Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference, Jammu and Kashmir
National Conference, and Mountbatten who were forcing him to either accede to
Pakistan or India. He did not surrender to this pressure; and as a loyal and
brave son of the soil, he protected the interests of Jammu and Kashmir State;
and opted to remain independent.
He wanted to
preserve his independence which he gained after lapse of the British
Paramountcy on 15 August 1947. As the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, he
concluded a Standstill Agreement with the government of Pakistan. He also
offered India a Standstill Agreement. India did not refuse to sign the
Standstill Agreement; but wanted to discuss this matter further.
It must be
remembered that he was the first Princely Ruler to establish the Constituent
Assembly. He was gradually giving away his powers to the people and the Assembly
when, Pakistan, in violation of the Standstill Agreement, attacked State of
Jammu and Kashmir on 22 October 1947. If there was no tribal invasion, it was
more than likely that Jammu and Kashmir would have been an independent country
with a constitutional monarchy.
When he was forced
by the Tribal attack to seek help from India, in his letter to Mountbatten,
Governor General of an independent India he wrote: ‘so
that it has become difficult to stop the wanton destruction of life and
property and the looting of the Mahura power house,...The number of women who
have been kidnapped and raped makes my heart bleed.... I have no option but to
ask for help from the Indian Dominion... . I have accordingly decided to do so,
and I attach the instrument of accession for acceptance by your Government. The
other alternative is to leave my state and people to free booters. On this
basis no civilised government can exist or be maintained. This alternative I
will never allow to happen so long as I am the ruler of the State and I have
life to defend my country...’ 3
If one impartially
read these sentences, one can see his pain on the destruction and loss of life
of his Subjects. No matter what was attitude of some of his officials, this
letter shows he cared for his people, whether they were Muslims or non Muslims.
In my opinion, the
biggest tribute to his rule is that even his Muslim critics also demand
protection under the State Subject Laws, be they are in Srinagar, Jammu, and
Muzaffarabad or in Gilgit. Furthermore, majority of the people seeking
unification and independence of Jammu and Kashmir demand all the areas of the
State of which he was the last Ruler.
References:
1/ Kashmir:
Its Aborigines and Their Exodus p 133
By Colonel Tej K Tikoo
2/
Justice Yusuf Saraf, Kashmiris Fight For Freedom, Vol. 1, p.374.
3/
Maharaja Hari Singh’s letter to Mountbatten written on 26 October 1947
Dr Shabir Choudhry
Chairman Institute
of Kashmir Affairs
Writer, TV anchor
and author of dozens of books on Jammu and Kashmir and India Pakistan
relations.
Tel: 07790 942471
Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment