A Comprehensive Note on Jammu & Kashmir
THE ACCESSION
Since the partition of the Indian sub-continent in 1947, Pakistan has sought to project the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India as invalid and that, as a state with a Muslim majority, it should have somehow become part of Pakistan. The Pakistani argument is that since the state had a Hindu ruler he was surreptitiously persuaded to accede to India, whereas if the wishes of the people had been considered, they would have opted for Jammu and Kashmir acceding to Pakistan. This patently false hypothesis has been used by successive leaders in Pakistan to refer to Jammu and Kashmir as the "unfinished business of Partition" and to justify Pakistan’s pretended "concern" for the Kashmiris’ rights, and its continued meddling in Jammu and Kashmir. Successive Pakistani leaders have referred to Kashmir as the "jugular vein" of Pakistan, a demonstration of the fact that it is the strategic importance of the state that has fashioned Pakistan’s actions and not any regard for the rights of the Kashmiris. Major General Akbar Khan who organised the raids in 1947 intended to forcibly seize Jammu and Kashmir writes in his book ‘Raiders in Kashmir’ that it seemed that Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan was not simply a matter of desirability, but of absolute necessity.
History proves the malafide nature of Pakistan’s arguments which are designed only to camouflage its territorial ambitions. The two nation theory was proved fallible even at its inception when a sizeable Muslim community chose to live, and continues to live and prosper, in secular India rather than go to the newly created Pakistan. In 1971, the Eastern Wing of Pakistan broke away after a war of liberation fought by the Bengali Muslims against the oppression of their co-religionists who had hitherto monopolised Pakistan’s governance. India’s role in that war was supportive of the liberation forces.
Given the ethos of Jammu and Kashmir and the liberal and secular philosophy that provided the foundation for the Indian Union it was natural that the leaders of the people of Jammu and Kashmir would seek to identify with a polity that enshrined the same values that they cherished. India, since its independence, has been a vibrant, secular democracy providing to the people of all its states, including Jammu and Kashmir, free and equal participation in political life and governance that has enabled them to determine their own destinies. It was this awareness of what India represented that prompted Sheikh Abdullah, the undisputed leader of the Kashmiri people at the time of Partition, to actively endorse the accession of the State to India and to appeal to India for help, on behalf of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, to repulse the aggression by Pakistan.
Speaking to the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir in 1951 Sheikh Abdullah said " .... In the final analysis, as I understand it, it is the kinship of ideals which determines the strength of ties between two States. The Indian National Congress has consistently supported the cause of the state’s people’s freedom. The autocratic rule of the Princes has been done away with and representative governments have been entrusted with the administration. Steps towards democratisation have been taken and these have raised the people’s standard of living, brought about much-needed social reconstruction, and, above all built up their very independence of spirit. Naturally, if we accede to India there is no danger of a revival of feudalism and autocracy. Moreover, during the last four years, the Government of India has never tried to interfere in our internal autonomy. This experience has strengthened our confidence in them as a democratic State.
The real character of a State is revealed in its Constitution. The Indian Constitution has set before the country the goal of secular democracy based upon justice, freedom and equality for all without distinction. This is the bedrock of modern democracy. This should meet the argument that the Muslims of Kashmir cannot have security in India, where the large majority of the population are Hindus. Any unnatural cleavage between religious groups is the legacy of Imperialism, and no modern State can afford to encourage artificial divisions if it is to achieve progress and prosperity. The Indian Constitution has amply and finally repudiated the concept of a religious State, which is a throwback to medievalism, by guaranteeing the equality of rights of all citizens irrespective of their religion, colour, caste and class.
The national movement in our State naturally gravitates towards these principles of secular democracy. The people here will never accept a principle which seeks to favour the interests of one religion or social group against another. This affinity in political principles, as well as in past association, and our common path of suffering in the cause of freedom, must be weighed properly while deciding the future of the State…."
The soundness of the principles enunciated by Sheikh Abdullah and their relevance to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, became evident again in 1996, when after years of terrorist violence, the people of Jammu and Kashmir once again exercised their democratic rights and chose their own government headed by Dr. Farooq Abdullah, President of the National Conference, a party with deep roots in all three regions of the State.
On the eve of Independence, Jammu and Kashmir was one of more than 560 Princely States which were governed under the doctrine of Paramountcy enunciated by the British. In return for the fealty to the Crown pledged by the rulers of the princely states, the King Emperor gave them protection through "subsidiary alliances". When the India Independence Act was passed by the British Parliament, British power was constitutionally transferred to the people of India as far as British India was concerned, putting an end to Paramountcy, leaving it to the Princes to arrive at such arrangements as they thought proper with the Governments of India and Pakistan.
The provision for accession made in the Government of India Act of 1935, as adapted under the Independence Act of 1947, says: "An Indian State shall be deemed to have acceded to the Dominion if the Governor General has signified the acceptance of an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof".
The law did not provide that the Instrument of Accession could be conditional. Once Accession was accepted the particular Princely State became an integral part of one or the other of the two Dominions, India or Pakistan.
The law had no provision for consulting the people of the Princely States. The ruler’s decision was final. Nor was there any provision in the law that the accession had to be ratified by ascertaining the wishes of the people of the acceding State. There was also no provision of law taking into account the religious complexion of the population of any of the Princely States.
Though Pakistan now harps on the people of Jammu and Kashmir not having been consulted about the accession in 1947 and demands a UN supervised plebiscite to ascertain their wishes, the reality is that while India was willing to ascertain the people’s wishes it was Pakistan which objected to any UN-supervised plebiscite. Lord Birdwood in his book "Two Nations and Kashmir" (London 1956 Page 46-47) writes "..With Mr. Jinnah, the approach (of Indian Princely States accession to India or Pakistan) was governed by the strictly constitutional attitude, that it was for the ruler, and the ruler alone, to decide.." The reason was obvious. Pakistan wanted Junagadh and Hyderabad. In both these states, with Muslim rulers and a Hindu majority, Pakistan was confident that they would opt for accession to Pakistan. Treating Jammu and Kashmir as an exception to this rule would have been inconvenient.
Campbell Johnson in his book ‘Mission with Mountbatten’ Chapter 19, writing about a meeting of the Joint Defence Council at Lahore on November 1, 1947 (after the accession of the state to India) recorded that "Mountbatten proposed that a plebiscite under UN auspices should be held but at that stage (Mohammed Ali) Jinnah was not agreeable to it ..."
Given the option to accede to one or the other Dominion under the Independence Act, the Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh vacillated, avoiding a decision. The legal framework for independence provided for rulers to enter into Standstill Agreements with either or both the Dominions in the interregnum, while they concluded which Dominion they wished to accede to. Hari Singh offered such Standstill Agreements to both India and Pakistan. Pakistan entered into a Standstill Agreement with Hari Singh, clearly recognising the right of the Ruler to decide on behalf of the state and its people. India sought consultations which never took place.
Pakistan was determined to get Jammu and Kashmir for itself. Major General Akbar Khan’s disclosure in his book "Raiders in Kashmir" has been mentioned. Sir Zafarullah Khan, arguing Pakistan’s case in the United Nations Security Council further amplified the rationale behind Pakistan’s obsession to acquire Jammu and Kashmir when he stated that "..If Kashmir should accede to India, Pakistan might as well, from both the economic and the strategic points of view, become a feudatory of India.." Pakistan sent a special emissary to Kashmir to try and persuade the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan. The Mission failed. In total disregard of the Standstill Agreement, Pakistan, which controlled the head of the then principal road into Kashmir, along the River Jhelum, cut off supplies of essential commodities such as salt and petrol, stopped supply of currency notes and small coins to the Imperial Bank in Kashmir and severed postal connections. Matters became increasingly critical despite the portests lodged by the Maharaja.
Other Chapters: