Of the midnight’s twins, their people, and the valley of doom

In Mid-August of 1947, the British colonial rule ended in the Indian subcontinent and two nations of India and Pakistan were split out of it. However, there were some 550-odd princely states remaining in the subcontinent which were not, in the true sense, a part of the British colony. They were given a choice to accede to India or Pakistan, or remain independent (Indian Independence Act 1947). The last option was more or less not feasible due to various practical hurdles¹. Now, accessions to the two nations were also not left without any conditions. As Lord Mountbatten (first Governor General of independent India) put it, geographical compulsions meant that most of them should select India. It was also decided that only those provinces which shared a common border with Pakistan could accede to it. The ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was Maharaja Hari Singh Dogra, a Hindu. However, more than three quarters of his subjects were Muslims. The Maharaja was actually toying with the idea of remaining independent. He actually signed a ‘standstill’ agreement with Pakistan in order that services such as trade travel and communication would be uninterrupted. India did not sign any such agreement but both the nations wanted to acquire Kashmir and tried to advance their influence through their allies and supporters in the state.

The main political organization in Kashmir, the National Conference led by Sheikh Abdullah (father of Farooq Abdullah and Grandfather of Omar Abdullah, both of whom had taken over the reins of the NC subsequently) largely consisting of moderate Muslims preferred to accede to India. However, a large section of the Kashimiri people in areas like Poonch valley preferred Pakistan. They initiated a rebellion and the Maharaja employed forces to crush it. Those who support accession to Pakistan were of the view that in line with the purpose of division, Kashmir should belong to Pakistan. It was a Muslim-majority area and moreover, it has a common border with Pakistan. They felt that the King was acting against the interest of the people. Soon after, in October 1947, tribal forces from Pakistan, allegedly supported by their regular military forces, tried to invade Kashmir to liberate it and to join it with Pakistan. The Maharaja was incapable of resisting this and had to seek the help of India. In turn, India wanted the king to sign the Bill of Accession of Kashmir to India. On his signing, Indian troops were airlifted to Kashmir to attack the infiltrators. This Bill of Accession and how and when it was signed is a major point of dispute between India and Pakistan even now. Pakistan says that the time of the signing was fabricated by India and that the Indian troops had reached Kashmir before it was signed. They also advocate that since the King had fled Kashmir, he had no right to decide for its people. The original Bill of Accession document had never been made public. (Arguably) The bill mentions that the accession of Kashmir to India is temporary and the future relationship between them would be negotiated later, possibly through a plebiscite. (A referendum, ballot question, or plebiscite is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal.)

Thus, India and Pakistan fought a war in Kashmir through 1948. The issue was internationalized when India approached the UN to mediate. Soon, UN mediated a ceasefire in the region. Indian troops were forcing Pakistani rebels to retreat when this happened. This is why many pro-Indians believe that it was a ‘Himalayan blunder’ by Nehru to have referred it to the UN at that time. The ceasefire line became the Line of Control (This name was adopted, however, following the Simla agreement in 1972). The UN resolution implied holding of a plebiscite after the withdrawal of the troops. Till date, no referendum was done and both the nations blames the actions of each other as its cause; Pakistan blames India for not implementing the provisions of the resolution while India maintains that this could not be done when Pakistan supports the infiltration and militancy in the state.

The Kashmir issue assumed further significance in the world politics when certain sects from within and outside the nations recognized the strategic importance of Kashmir’s location. For e.g., cold water politics played an important role in the advent of International interest in Kashmir, when India grew closer to the USSR and Pakistan to the West. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the opposition US had to it gave Pakistan a larger role to play in Afghanistan. The Aghan issue impacted almost the entire Islamic world and an Islamic Warrior Front was formed to gain the control of Afghanistan. This front (Mujahedeen) even involved outsiders from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Philippines and even Chechnya. They, together with the Pakistan military even succeeded in helping the Taliban gain control of many parts in Afghanistan. These new developments redefined the strategic importance of the State of Pakistan. Moreover, geographically, Kashmir-less Pakistan has a disadvantage against India if things boil down to a military encounter or a war, most of the major Pakistan cities are very near to the border as compared to the Indian cities which are much far away and protected much better. There was also an effort to create a Islamic Superstate including the regions of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and a free Kashmir. This was when the Kashmir accession got the next shot of strategic prominence. Many of the mujahedeen from the Afghan began to take interest in Indian-administered Kashmir. Within Pakistan, militant fundamentalist organizations were openly active in recruiting volunteers to fight in Kashmir. The Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and the Laskar-e-Toiba were the biggest among them. The Mujahedeen regularly crossed into Indian-administered Kashmir and carried out armed attacks against what they perceived as Indian occupation forces.

In any case, it is indisputable that both India and Pakistan had shown no intent of foregoing the territories under their control. Both the nations can be rightly accused of worsening the situation by their actions; be it the improper management of the Military forces and Governance in the valley by India, the sponsoring of militant outfits in Kashmir and supporting other anti-Indian movements (like the struggle for Khalistan) within India by Pakistan. More wars were fought between the countries in and outside Kashmir. In due course, the matter became one of national pride for both nations. Post cold-war, the issue caught more international attention when both the countries went nuclear.

As of now, India claims that the whole of Kashmir is legally an integral part of its territory and provides as proof, the Accession bill passed by an elected Kashmir Assembly in 1954 whereby it was declared an independent part of India. Pakistan refutes this claim pointing out that Kashmiris from the Pakistan-occupied regions were not represented in the assembly.

Unknown to many in today’s generation, there are several other emotional issues that added fire to the dispute between the countries. Jawahar Lal Nehru himself belonged to the Kashmiri Pandits who had been an integral part of Indian intellectual and political elite. They strongly advocated that Kashmir should belong to India. On the other hand, Pakistan also had a powerful lobby of Kashmiris supporting it, especially those in the regions of Punjab (in Pakistan) where they have settled soon after the partition². The great (British-) Indian poet and thinker Dr Allama Muhammad Iqbal who was among the first to dream about a Muslim Homeland himself is a Kashmiri. He is regarded as Paksitan’s national poet. (Interestingly, one of the most popular patriotic songs of India, Sare Jahan se Acha, was written and first sung by the same man)

The other relevant issue that is relatively unknown to the public is regarding the sharing of water. The economic and political implications are largely affected by this factor too. A large area of Indian agricultural areas and almost the entire agricultural sector of Pakistan is largely dependent on the waters of the rivers that originate in and around Kashmir. It is interesting to note that in spite of no consensus in other areas, both the nations have more or less settled the water sharing issues, mainly by the Indus Water treaty signed in 1960. As per this, the three eastern rivers Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas were awarded to India and Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab to Pakistan. Over the subsequent years, India and Pakistan have built dams and barrages over these rivers and these play an important role in the economies of both the nations. Both the nations are wary about the future of these if the status quo of Kashmir is realigned.

Disclaimer and opinion

The content above may not be 100% factual, impartial, or unbiased. Unfortunately, I could not discuss this issue in first person to Nehru, Jinnah, Maharaja Hari Singh, Lord Mountbatten, or even to Omar Abdullah. Instead, I have depended almost entirely on the Internet for collecting the data and content. I had referred the notifications of both the Governments in their websites for collecting details about the various treaties and also the published articles by Politologen (journal published by the Swedish Political Science Association), IEER, etc., besides a host of other sources and books by renowned authors. As with many of the controversies, the available information is more of the respective interpretations of the authors which may or may not be very close to the actual truth.

Contrary to the appearence and nature of contents, this article is not intended to be a lesson on facts or figures or treaties or even the truth. Neither is it meant to support or oppose the claims of Pakistan, India, Kashmiri Muslims, Hindus, or any particular sect. This is to invite your attention so as to develop increased awareness about the issue. It is a plea to the people concerned to have a more accommodative view about the opinions and views from the men on the other side. That would be essential if we need to look forward for a workable solution to the crisis. It is also essential that national pride, nationalism, fundamentalism, or religion should not cloud the vision to an amicable settlement. The think-tanks, peace groups, and visionaries across the world have proposed various solutions for the issue. Invariably, it involves provisions similar to those adopted in various settlements that were reached elsewhere in the world: Demilitarization of the region, consensus on an International border along the lines of LoC, making it porous like in the case of US-Canada border, rehabilitation of the displaced communities, increased interaction between the people and confidence-buidling measures on either sides, more autonomy and a governing arrangement similar to the case of Aland Islands between Sweden and Finland, so on and so forth. None of this is possible without abandoning the combative mindset and ultra-nationalist postures of the two nations.

To quote Owen Bennett Jones from his book, “Pakistan: Eye of the Storm”: Ever since 1947, the views of the Kashmiris have been obscured by the dispute between India and Pakistan. With the insurgency over a decade old, most Kashmiris are sick of the conflict and are desperate for a peaceful settlement. But for both India and Pakistan, the symbolic importance of the Kashmir dispute means that they will inevitably follow their own perceived national interests rather than those of the Kashmiri people. If the Kashmiris had been conducting a straightforward fight for independence in the same way as the Chechens or East Timorese, they would have had a greater chance of success. The tragedy of Kashmir is that the voices of the Kashmiri people themselves have been drowned out by the nationalists and ideologues in Islamabad and Delhi.

Footnotes and trivia

1. The two other princely states which were initially undecided were Hyderabad and Junagadh. The last Nizam of Hyderbad initially declared it to be a part of Pakistan but the British government did not allow this. Later, he announced his intention to become independent. Some people of the state rebelled against the Nizam. The communist/Telangana peasant struggle, Razakaar attacks, etc., followed and finally Operation Polo by Indian forces in Spetember 1948 absorbed Hyderabad to India.The Nawab of Junagadh chose to accede to Pakistan arguing that it adjoined Pakistan by sea (It is a coastal district of the present Gujarat). Again, these led to tensions and conflicts, particularly from the states like Mangrol and Babariawad which were under the suzerainty of Junagadh. The rulers of these states acceded to India. Later, the Nawab fled to Pakistan and the situation in the state became worse. The court and the Dewan of the state, Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto (father of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and grandfather of Benazir Bhutto) invited India to mediate. Pakistan objected to this and also claimed that if Kashmir with a Muslim majority can be acceded to India by the will of the Muslim ruler, the same rule should be followed for Junagadh too, which was a Hindu-majority area. However, a plebiscite was conducted in February 1948, which went almost unanimously in favor of accession to India. Junagadh became a part of the Indian state of Saurashtra and then the Bombay state which was later split into Maharashtra and Gujarat.  

2. Even the name Pakistan has close relations with Kashmir. In fact the name of the country, Pakistan is an acronym. This was developed by a group of students at Cambridge University in their pamphlet in 1933 called Now or Never. They came up with the term Pakstan (later, Pakistan) composed of letters taken from the names of the following regions: Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, and Balochistan. It also means the land of the Paks, the spiritually pure and clean.