Is J&K a natural part of Pakistan or India?
In a statement a rabid pro-Pakistani and chairman of one faction of
the Hurriyat Conference argued " that Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan was
justified because of its seven hundred kilometers long common border with that
country. Hence, Kashmir was natural part of Pakistan, he maintained. Many
more people including units of both factions of the Hurriyat who want Kashmir’s
accession with Pakistan, find a strong rationale in Pakistan’s two nation
theory as the basis of Kashmir ---- a predominantly Muslim region --- acceding
to Pakistan." This can cause confusion to the present and the future
generations of the Kashmiris. Therefore, it is desirable that in the context of
making J&K State a part of Pakistan or Hindustan, some facts of history are
brought forward.
Five thousand-year-old history of Kashmir tells us that this state
remained independent and self-ruling under various Rajas, Maharajas, Nawwabs,
and Emperors. During Shahmiri rule, its borders extended from the Tibet in the
north to Sir Hind and Multan in the south. However, owing to internal
dissensions, its sovereignty came to an end with its conquest by Emperor Akbar
in A.D. 1586. After the Mughals, Kashmir passed into the hands of the Afghans,
Sikhs and lastly the Dogras. It is necessary to recollect that prior to the
emergence of Pakistan movement Kashmiris had begun their struggle to liberate
their land from autocratic rule of Dogras. Kashmir freedom movement was
launched in 1931, at least nine years earlier than the 1940 Lahore Resolution,
later on called Pakistan Resolution.
Independence Act of 1947 stipulated
passing of Muslim majority areas to Pakistan and Hindu majority areas to India
in the territory of British India. 560 princely states were not a part of
British India administered territory though they had taken the oath of loyalty
to the British Crown. In this way they had maintained a semblance of their semi
- independent status. With the winding up of the Raj, these princely states
automatically became independent. However, in accordance with Section 7 of the
Independence Act, it was recommended that the states should take into account
their geographical location and the wishes of the majority population to decide
accession either to India or to Pakistan. The option of remaining independent
too was there. Thus India and Pakistan came into being as two sovereign states
of the sub-continent on the basis of Independence Act but the formula of
passing the territories of 560 princely states to India or Pakistan on the
basis of Hindu/ Muslim majority was not applied. If so happened that the
question of accession of these princely states became a source of dispute
between the two countries. In the process, Kashmir dispute proved a hindrance
not only to the development and prosperity of India and Pakistan but it also
became a source of great misery and suffering for the people of the State. Some
questions arise:
- Why did the Muslim League, in a meeting of its Executive Committee, concede to the rulers of the princely states the right of deciding the future of their respective states?
- Why did Pakistan accept the announcement of accession of Junagar and Manawa to Pakistan despite the fact that the majority population in both the states was of Hindus
- Did not Pakistan accept constitutional status (independence) of Jammu and Kashmiris by accepting the stand-still agreement with the Maharaja of Kashmir
- The State of Hyderabad is not physically contiguous to Pakistan. It has Hindu majority population.Yet did not Pakistan accept the announcement of its self-rule status mad by the Nawwab?
The point
is that if the princely states too had been distributed according to the Muslim
and non-Muslim majority theory at the time of the partition, Mr. Jinnah would
never have accepted the offer of accession of Junagarh and Manawa to Pakistan,
nor would he have accepted the sovereignty of Hyderabad Deccan. A statement
issued by Mr. Jinnah on 17 June 1947, and preserved in the archives of that
country according to the Pakistani Minister of Information and Broadcasting
endorses our view point. It says:
"These days conflicting opinions are expressed in regard to the Indian
princely states. It has, therefore, become necessary for me to explain the view
point of All India Muslim League on this issue. I would like to clarify
misunderstandings and state what our strategy about these states will be. From
constitutional and legal point of view, Indian princely states become
independent with the termination of the British Raj. They will be free to make
a decision about their future or to find a way of remaining independent. Their
options are to join the constitutional assembly of India or Pakistan or decide
to remain independent. In case they decide to remain independent, they can
maintain their relations with India or Pakistan as they deem fit. The Muslim
League’s policy in this regard has been very clear from the beginning, and that
is not to interfere in the internal matters of any state. This matter should
fundamentally remain between the ruler and his subjects. Such states as want to
remain independent but would like to talk to Pakistan on any matter or some
political understanding or any other sort of relationship like trade, economic
etc. we shall agree to exchange ideas with them".
My candid opinion is
that the Cabinet Mission Memorandum of 12 May, in which the policy of the
British Government has been set forth, does not impose any restriction on them.
Generally but wrongly it is said that the states have only one option of
joining one or the other constitutional assembly. In my opinion if they want to
remain independent they can do so. Neither the British government nor the
British parliament can force them to do something against their free will. They
do not have any power or authority to do so.
After meeting with
two Muslim Conference leaders, Chowdhury Hamidullah Khan and
Muhammad Ishaque Qureshi, the Qaid Azam issued a press
statement on 11 July 1947 that dealt with Kashmir situation. It said:
“I have more than once made it clear
that the Indian states are free to join either Pakistan or India or remain
independent.” He repeated it on 30 July 1947: “Muslim League has no intention
of bringing any pressure on the states to adopt any particular course of
action.” He added: “The legal situation is that with the transfer of power and
termination of sovereignty, Indian states will automatically regain their full
independent status. As such they will be free either to join one or the other
dominion or to remain independent".
As a man of principles, Qaide Azam had adopted a stand that was in conformity with the situation that emerged after the termination of the British rule over India. He did not make religion, majority/minority or geographical proximity etc. a criterion for the states to decide their future. The two - nation theory was applicable only to the provinces governed by the Raj. This is why he accepted the accession papers of Junagarh and Manawa rulers despite the fact that these were Hindu majority states. Likewise, he accepted the declaration of independence made by the Nawwab of Hyderabad despite the fact that its border was not contiguous to Pakistan. In the light of this policy (of Mr. Jinnah), the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir sent a telegram to the head of Pakistan State Relations Department, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar on 12 August 1947 saying:
“The Government of Jammu and Kashmir
desires to enter into a standstill agreement with Pakistan on such matters as
exist between the State and the British Government at the moment. We propose
that the arrangements existing today would continue to be the same with
Pakistan till a fresh agreement is concluded with your government”. In his
reply he said:
"The Government of Pakistan has received your telegram on 21
August. In regard to a standstill agreement, the Government of Pakistan agrees
to continue the agreements, which exist between the states and the British
government."
By accepting this agreement, Pakistan formally recognized the
constitutionally independent status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. A
similar telegram had been sent to the Indian government, and the reply was:
“The Government of India would be pleased if a minister or some formal
authority is deputed to talk to us on the stand - still agreement so that
earlier agreements and administrative arrangements continue.” However, it did
not become a formal agreement.
On 18 October 1947, the Prime Minister of Jammu & Kashmir sent a
telegram to the Governor General of Pakistan. He said:“Despite a stand-still
agreement that came into effect with the termination of the British rule, many
difficulties have been created for his state. The system of civil supplies
like, petrol, oil, food, salt, sugar and textiles etc. From West Punjab
routes has collapsed; saving bank accounts have been closed and West Punjab
banks are not honouring the cheques issued in their name. Imperial Bank
declines to release our credits. Vehicles registered in the state are stopped
in Rawalpindi, and the railway traffic between Sialkot and Jammu has been
suspended despite the fact that state authorities have offered safe passage to
a hundred thousand Muslims wanting to travel from Pathankot to
Sialkot. As against this, out of 220 state nationals proceeding to Kashmir
via Kohala, 180 were brutally massacred. Thousands of men from Pakistan
armed with latest weapons have entered Poonch area. They have
resorted to large scale killing and loot of non-Muslim population there and
they are molesting women. Yet in spite of all this, Pakistani media has
unleashed propaganda in which it tries to bring onus of these depravities to
our door step. Actually these atrocities are perpetrated with tacit
understanding and full knowledge of the Government of Pakistan.”
When riots escalated, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir sent a letter to
Lord Mountbatten, the Governor General of India on 26 October 1947 bringing to
his notice the current situation in the State. He requested for support from
India and along with this request, sent to him the Instrument of Accession.
Next day the Governor General sent his reply in which he indicated acceptance
of the Instrument of Accession. Reacting to Maharaja’s request for military
assistance, the Governor General wrote: “Meanwhile in response to Your
Highness’s appeal for military aid, action has been taken today to send troops
of the Indian army to Kashmir to help your own forces to defend your
territory and to protect the lives, property and honour of your people”
Keeping the documentary evidence, statements of Qaide Azam and the
events of contemporary history in view, it is clear that accession of the
states did not take place on the basis of Muslim and non-Muslim factor.
Needless to remind that the stalwarts of the Jama’at-e Islami of those days
like Maulana Mowdoodi, the Indian Muslim ulema and most of religious groups
were opposed to the division of India because they believed that division
of India actually meant division of Indian Muslims. What do we know of the
Muslims of the sub-continent today: they are divided and further divided into
20 crores in India, 15 crores in Pakistan and 20 crores in Bangladesh making up
a total of 55 crores? They would have been the holders of half of the total
ruling power of united India in which there would have been outright Muslim
rule in the regions of Pakistan, Kashmir and Bangladesh as it is today.
The next point is about the borders. One fails to see any logic in the
assertion that a region having contiguous border with another region or country
should become its part. If we accept this logic then Canada and the US, Mexico
and the US, Russia and China, Mongolia and Russia and many Arab countries
should be part of one another on the basis of their long common border. Then
Nepal should be a part of India or India a part of Nepal. In the case of Jammu
and Kashmir it is not correct to say that J&K is a dispute between India
and Pakistan. The truth is that it is an issue between the people of that
State, and the Governments of Pakistan and India in regard to the freedom of
the J&K State. It is an issue between the people of J&K State and the
Government of China about that stretch of State territory, which the Government
of Pakistan has gifted to China, and also the portion of the territory China
grabbed after India’s defeat in Indo-China war of 1962.
India took Kashmir case to the UN on January 1, 1948. It was not only on
the basis of State’s accession but also on the basis of Stand-still Agreement
and the right of the States to remain independent. It was this basis which made
Pakistan agree to the 13 August 1948 Security Council Resolution Part II that the
situation had changed in the State of Jammu and Kashmir owing to the presence
of Pakistani troops there. Part A of the Resolution sates:
- Pakistan will withdraw all its troops from J&K State.
- Government of Pakistan undertakes to use its influence to recall the tribesmen and Pakistani nationals from the State of J&K who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting.
- Until a final solution is found, the Government of J&K will hold the administration of areas through local authority.
Part B states:
- India commits that after Pakistani forces, tribal and Pakistani nationals leave the State, and a bulk of the Indian forces will gradually leave the State.
- Till the final settlement, Indian government will maintain minimum number of troops with the consent of the Commission to assist local law and order authority.
- Indian government ensures that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir will take all necessary steps to protect law and order, and political and human rights of the people.
According to Part C of the Resolution, both governments agree that a decision made by the people of the Sate will be
acceptable to them.
On January 5, 1949, the Government of Pakistan submitted a draft
resolution before the UN "that the question of accession of J&K State
with either India or Pakistan should be decided through a fair plebiscite. The
UN observed that plebiscite should take place only after the recommendations
made in Part A and B of the 13 August 1948 Resolution is implemented. The
Commission should be convinced that peace has returned to the State of Jammu
and Kashmir and Pakistani troops, tribesmen and armed persons have left the
State."
The position is that neither India nor Pakistan acted on the
recommendations of the resolution. Furthermore, in the UN Resolution of January
5, 1949, the Government of Pakistan introduced an amendment seeking replacement
of term “Kashmir issue” by “Pakistan and India dispute over Kashmir”. This
resolution actually deprived us (Kashmiris) of our right to national freedom
but gave the right to choose our master. This is not acceptable to a large
majority of Kashmiris.
Now Kashmir issue is not only an indication of enmity between the two
countries but accession of the State or its division on the basis of religion
is nothing short of a suicide for the people of J&K State and the
sub-continent at large. As such, taking into view the interests of the
people of Jammu and Kashmir, the desire for prosperity and development of India
and Pakistan and also the principles established by Qaid Azam Muhammad
Ali Jinnah in regard to the princely states, there is only one solution to
Kashmir issue. The original state from Gilgit to Lakhanpore should be
re-united not on clan or religious basis but on the basis of a federation of
nationalities living in the state. Each unit should have its autonomous
status with no discrimination on the basis of the size. No region will have
ascendancy on any other region. Within the federation, all regions and units
will enjoy freedom and self-rule on the basis of equality. Only an independent
and self-ruling federal state can promote cordial and friendly relations
between India and Pakistan.
India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru repeatedly promised to
the people of Jammu and Kashmir from various platforms, that is:
"I wish to draw your attention to broadcast on Kashmir which I
made last evening. I have stated our government's policy and made it clear that
we have no desire to impose our will on Kashmir but to leave final decision to
people of Kashmir. I further stated that we have agreed on impartial
international agency like United Nations supervising referendum". (Nehru's reiteration of plebiscite
pledge in a telegram to Liaqat Ali Khan, November 03, 1947)
"We have given our pledge to the people of Kashmir and
subsequently to the United Nations; we stood by it and we stand by it today.
Let the people of Kashmir decide."
(Nehru's statement in Indian Parliament, 12 February 1951)
"Kashmir has been wrongly looked upon as a prize for India or
Pakistan. People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to
be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final
arbiters of their future."
(Addressing the All India Congress Committee on 6th July 1951, Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India)
Indian authorities should not forget the promises made by their
outstanding leader. These promises made to the people of Jammu and Kashmir
should be implemented. We want to put an end to ignorance and poverty among the
people in India and Pakistan and we want an era of development and prosperity
dawn on the entire sub-continent.
This article was published in various Indian,
Pakistani and Kashmiri newspapers.
