THE KASHMIR TANGLE
BY
Prof. S. P. SANGAR, M.A. (Hons.)
(Government
Hamidia College, Bhopal)
The
fair land of Kashmir, which was desecrated by invaders from the tribal areas,
is slightly smaller than Great Britain and about the same size as Hyderabad. It
has an area of 84,471 square miles. The world-famed vale of Kashmir, the
emerald set in pearls, is 6,000 feet above the sea level. The peak of the Mount
Godwin Austin in Kashmir is 28,250 feet high, second only to the great Mt.
Everest in height and grandeur.
The
population of Kashmir, according to the census figures of 1941 was 40,21,616.
Of this 77.11% were Muslims, 20% Hindus and 1.6% Sikhs, the rest comprising
Buddhist and other faiths. As a result of the foreign raid in 1947, a large
number of Hindus were made to leave Kashmir, and a great number of Muslims from
Pakistan entered, thus raising the Muslim population in 1948 to 95%.
Kashmir
has an ancient history going back to 3,000 years. Legend has it that the
original name of the valley was “Kashyapa Mira”, after its founder, the sage
Kashyapa.
Ashoka
founded the city of Srinagar in the third century B.C. Buddhism, introduced by
Asoka, existed side by side with Hinduism for several centuries.
Lalitaditya was one of the greatest Hindu of Kashmir. He conquered the
neighbouring land of the Punjab and Central Asia and built the famous Martand
temple. Sultan Zainul-ab-din ruled Kashmir in the beginning of the fifteenth
century. Akbar conquered it in 1586. Jehangir and Shahjehan laid out a number
of gardens there. After the defeat of the Sikhs in 1846 Kashmir and Gilgit
passed from the hand of their Sikh masters to the British. Maharaja Gulab Singh
who held Jammu, Ladakh and Baluchistan, purchased Kashmir and Gilgit from the
British. Maharaja Hari Singh and his son Yuvaraja Karan Singh are descendants
of Maharaja Gulab Singh.
Kashmir,
like other Indian States, was till recently under the rule of despotic and
autocratic ruler. The Indian National Congress launched
the States People’s Conference, a movement for the liberation of the people of
the States. Kashmir, under the guidance of its popular and brave leader, Sheikh
Mohd. Abdullah, was much affected and inspired by this movement. The National
Conference, consisting of persons of all castes, creeds, and religions, having
faith in “the objective of a responsible and democratic Government in the
State,” carried on agitation from 1939. In that year the National Conference
passed a resolution known as the “national demand”. “This resolution advocated
responsible government, joint (not communal) electorates based on adult
franchise, with seats reserved for the minorities, and legislative control of
expenditure in most of the departments of the government.” Sheikh Abdullah,
like the Indian National leaders, was repeatedly imprisoned and in 1946 was
sentenced to three years imprisonment. On this occasion Pandit Nehru went to
Kashmir to defend and support Sheikh Abdullah.
As
a result of the British announcement of June 3, 1947, and by the Indian
Independence Act, India and Pakistan came into existence on August 15, 1947.
This Act also announced the lapse of Paramountcy, but provided that any of the
Princely States could accede to either of the Dominions, or might stay out of
them as a separate entity.
After August 15, 1947, India put no pressure on Kashmir for accession, as India wanted “not mere accession from the top, but an association in accordance with the will of the people.” But soon after 15th August, Pakistan signed with Kashmir a Standstill Agreement according to which posts, telegraphs and railways were to be administered by Pakistan.
Now Pakistan got seized with the anxiety of effecting an immediate accession of Kashmir. In order to attain her objective she brought every pressure to bear upon Kashmir. As all the supplies vital to Kashmir's need, like food-grains, salt, sugar, and petrol, came from Pakistan, and could not be easily supplied by India, Pakistan was in a position to put a very serious pressure on Kashmir. She applied an economic blockade, and stopped the supply of these articles and threatened the economic stifling of Kashmir.
But
when this failed to achieve her objective, she let loose a torrent of tribal
raids on the unhappy valley. Tribal raiders from the N.W.F. Province, and
Pakistan nationals and ex-servicemen from the neighbouring districts of Western
Panjab, were collected on the Pakistan border, equipped with the latest weapons
and hurled on Kashmir under the command of competent officers. These
blood-thirsty raiders set up a reign of terror and committed serious acts of
depredation on the unhappy inhabitants. They indulged in murder, arson, and
loot and foul attacks on women and children. A considerable portion of Jammu
fell into their hands.
On
October 24, 1947, the, raiders, under the command of Major Khurshid Anwar,
Deputy Commander of the Pakistan Muslim League National Guard, swooped down on
Muzzafarabad and started their career of murder, rape and arson. These men were
armed with Bren guns; machine-guns, mortars, flame-throwers and had a large
number of transport vehicles.
The
Maharaja of Kashmir appealed to Pakistan not to aid the raiders; but his
request fell on deaf ears. Then he appealed to India. There was discussion on
it on the 25th and 26th in the Defence Council, as the question was to be
considered from all points of view and was fraught with serious consequences.
On the 26th an urgent appeal came from the Maharaja and from the popular leader
of Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah, who was by now released from jail. They begged for
immediate military aid and offered the accession of Kashmir to India. Lord
Mountbatten, the then Governor-General of India, advised the Government of
India to accept the accession India did so; but we made it clear to the
Maharaja that the accession would not be valid, unless it was decided by
reference to the will of the people after Kashmir was cleared of the raiders
and peace restored. Another condition was that the Government of Kashmir must
be carried on in accordance with the popular will and Sheikh Abdullah be
charged to form a popular Government.
Our
Prime Minister sent immediate help to Kashmir by air, but not before the 27th
of October. A delay of 24 hours would have meant the fall of Srinagar and
disastrous consequences for Kashmir, India and Pakistan. Our troops went into
action immediately and their gallant commander died fighting.
Now
the question naturally arises: “What led Pakistan to aid and abet the raiders?”
The reason is not far to seek. Pakistan wanted to coerce Kashmir into
accession, and when she failed to do so, decided to capture Kashmir by force of
arms. Pakistan was fighting the battle of Kashmir, standing behind the raiders;
and, in the event of their being victorious, she was to become the virtual
fortress of the valley, and present to the world a fait accompli. ‘Pakistan
will not be complete without Kashmir and it is the duty of every Pakistani to
be prepared for it,” said Mr. Abdual Quaiyum Khan, Premier of the N.W.F.P.,
while making a public speech on September 18, 1949, in Hyderabad (Sind). Once
this principle was decided on, Pakistan started to execute it in practice, and
to gain her objective she put forward all sorts of
pleas. For about ten months she denied any sort of complicity
in the Kashmir imbroglio, and her great public leaders and responsible men in
the Government vehemently supported that denial. But when Pakistan could no
longer conceal her large armies and her hand behind the scenes became
absolutely clear, she began to put forward all sorts of reasons for the invasion
of Kashmir. On February 7–10, 1950, Sir Mohd. Zafrullah said in the Security
Council that Kashmir’s accession to India was not valid, as the majority of the
population was Muslim and the country adjoined Pakistan. But when an exactly
similar plea was offered for the creation of Pakhtunistan, Pakistan, instead of
meeting their demand, began to bomb the Pakhtuns into silence. In the one case
it was a question of mere religion, in the other that of nationality along with
the sameness of religion.
To
the Pakistani and British propaganda, concentrating attention on Mr. Jinnah’s
two-nation theory and Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan on religious grounds, our
Prime Minister retorted on Sep. 24, 1949, during the All-Jammu-Kashmir
Conference at Srinagar:
“This
is a surprising argument. At no time in India have we accepted the two-nation
theory, nor will we accept it. Why did we agree to partition? To avoid
conflict, disorder, and postponement of achievement of freedom……What we
accepted was the popular verdict as expressed by the elected
representatives and not the two-nation theory. If we had accepted the theory
40,000,00 Muslims would have become aliens in India.”
The
last words are significant.
In
his statement before the Security Council (Feb, 78-10, 50) the Pakistan Foreign
Minister also said:
“Kashmir.….is
vital for Pakistan…..If Kashmir should accede to India, Pakistan might as well,
from both the economic and strategic points of view, become a feudatory of
India or cease to exist as an independent sovereign State.”
Now
the words in italics were meant to stir the already active imagination of the
British people. Sir Zafrullah wanted to awe the British opinion that in the
event of Kashmir remaining out, Pakistan, the child of their creation, would
cease to exist! The Pakistan Foreign Minister’s plea of economic and. strategic
importance was an unsuccessful attempt to take the wind out of India’s sails
and a mere counter-argument to India’s similar plea. Much earlier than Sir
Zafrullah’s statement in the Security Council, India’s Prime Minister had
affirmed on Nov. 25, 1947, in India’s Constituent Assembly (Legislative) that
Kashmir was vital to the economy and strategy of India. “Kashmir, because of
her geographical position, with her frontiers with three countries, namely, the
Soviet Union, China and Afghanistan, is intimately connected with the security
and international contacts of India. Economically also, Kashmir is intimately
related to India. The caravan routes from Central Asia to India pass through the
Kashmir State.”
To
put it in a nut-shell, Pakistan’s argument has been that a strong State, on the
plea of supposed national security, and in Pan-Islamic interests, has every
right to devour a neighbouring State.
To
support Pakistan in its wild policies and ruinous adventures, Britain has been
the main inspiring, guiding and controlling hand. Pakistan was not created for
nothing. It was designed to be used as an Anglo-American military base against
Russia. Towards the end of last year a writer in the London “Economist” wrote:
“Suddenly,
bases in Pakistan seem to have become more important than those of Egypt or
Palestine. Karachi is two days steaming nearer the Persian Gulf than
Alexandria, and Persia’s vulnerable frontiers with Russia would be better defended
from Quetta than from the Canal zone. Moreover, in the Middle East proper…..one
must also have a military mission and a garrison…..local armies have neither
the technicians nor officers to stand up to a modern army. But Pakistan’s
forces have learnt their trade the hard way in two world wars, and any British
officers, they feel they need, can hold operational command and are not
confined to advisory functions in a mission.”
Therein
lies the genesis of Anglo-Saxon interest in Pakistan’s game in Jammu-Kashmir.
Pakistan, along with India, has thus become a piece in the chess-board of
international politics.
In
the February, 1950, discussions on Kashmir in the Security Council, Sir B. N.
Rau, India’s representative, quoting certain statements of Sir Zafrullah, made
a startling revelation. It was that General Gracie, Commander-in-Chief of the
Pakistan Army, recommended to the Pakistan Government the act of aggression on
Kashmir. From his statement it is absolutely clear that the major offensive in
Kashmir was launched at the instance of General Gracie, a subject.
To
resume the thread of events our armed, forces went to Kashmir on the invitation
of the ruler and of the acknowledged leader of the people. They saved the
valley of Kashmir and the city of Srinagar from ruination and drove the raiders
away. Since then large-scale fighting began to take place. Now it was a clear
case of aggression on the part of Pakistan and Pakistan’s armies fighting on
Indian soil. But India still desisted from attacking Pakistan. On the other
hand, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, a lover and champion of world peace, tried to
explore all avenues to a peaceful solution of the Kashmir problem. He requested
the Pakistan Government not to give the raiders transit through Pakistan
territory by motor or rail, not to supply them petrol, food and ammunition, not
to allow them the use of Pakistan territory as a base of operations, and to
stop Pakistan nationals and Pakistan officers from taking part in operations
against the Jammu and Kashmir State, as this State formed a part of India by
accession.
A
letter specifying these various objectionable forms of aid to the raiders was
delivered personally by Pandit Nehru to Mr. Liaqut Ali Khan on 22nd December,
1947, in New Delhi. Pakistan kept mum. India’s two reminders failed to elicit
any reply. Actuated by an inflexible determination to solve the Kashmir tangle
by peaceful methods, India presented the case at the bar of world opinion, and
on December 30, 1947, lodged a formal protest with the Security Council of the
UNO.
It
is needless to say that the attitude of the Security Council to India’s request
has been most unsatisfactory, regrettable and amazing. Because of the United
Kingdom’s interest in Pakistan, the other members of the Security Council fell
into her way of thinking and were led astray. To India’s simple complaint that
Pakistan was an aggressor and was aiding and abetting the raiders and that she
should be persuaded not to do so, the Security Council never gave any
consideration. Rather, they side-tracked the issue and slurred it over. Instead
of taking action on India’s complaint, they decided to investigate Pakistan’s
out-of-the-way and fantastic charges of India’s determination to crush
Pakistan, organized genocide of Muslims in India, accession of Junagadh, and
the procurement of Kasmir’s accession by force of arms.
On
28th January, 1948, the Security Council established a United Nations
Commission on India and Pakistan and charged it with the task of carrying out
this investigation. India vehemently resisted this action of the Security
Council. There was so much agitation and resentment against the Security
Council’s decision that, at one time, it was considered likely that India would
withdraw her case from the UNO. Pandit Nehru sent a note to the Security
Council that India would not acquiesce in this extension of the Commission’s
scope and refused to co-operate.
Pakistan
denied all charges levelled against her by India. Her representatives were
apparently irritated that such charges should have been made against her. Her
politicians, statesmen and leaders emphatically denied that Pakistan had
anything to do with the raids. But when the UNCIP arrived in India in July,
1948, and observed things for two months, startling revelations were made.
Pakistan admitted on September 6, 1948, that her armies were fighting in
Kashmir–an admission which, twenty-four hours before, they were not prepared to
make. It was really a most amazing thing that responsible persons in a
Government should, for over ten months, repeat all manner of lies about their
non-complicity in the aggression, should try to deceive the world and then
suddenly, on being found out, make admission of their complicity! Their whole
case, built so laboriously, was torn to pieces. Pakistan admitted that her
armies were sent to Kashmir in the month of April when India launched a great
offensive against the raiders. But, from the statement of General Gracie, Sir
B. N. Rau proved in the Security Council that the Pakistan armies had been
there much earlier and Pakistan was aiding the raiders in some direct or
indirect manner. Pakistan’s plea was that her armies were in Kashmir in
defensive position against mounting Indian armies. What a convenient argument?
What a place this world would become, if Governments of countries began to send
their armies to other countries to take up defensive positions there. Pakistan
sent her armies to Kashmir to protect herself against an invasion of Pakistan
by India through the mountain passes of Kashmir! “It would have been easier,”
remarked Pandit Nehru recently,–“to send our armies to Tibet and Central Asia
and come down to Pakistan through the Karakoram Pass.” But imagination staggers
at the thought of a country sending her armies into the territory of a
neighbouring State, and that too without even informing her or the UNO! While
invading a country, even Hitler was more courteous in his pleas and procedure.
Both
India and Pakistan agreed in the Security Council to decide the matter by
plebiscite.
The
UNCIP’s resolution of 13th August, 1948, assumed great importance. After
dilatory tactics and with many reservations, Pakistan came to agree to the 13th
August resolution of the Commission. In October 1948, in the General Assembly
of the UNO in Paris, India and Pakistan agreed to the general principles of a
plebiscite.
Due
to the Commission’s good offices, the cease-fire in Kashmir became effective
one minute before the midnight of January 1, 1949. On January 5, the Commission
unanimously adopted a resolution supplementing the Commission’s resolution of
August 13, 1948. On April 15, both the Governments received from the Commission
proposals for a full truce agreement, representing an adjustment of
“view-points within the frame-work of commitments already entered into”.
But
here difficulties again began to raise their head and “we came up against a
blank wall,” because of Pakistan’s attitude and her virtual refusal to carry
out the agreements regarded as definite pre-requisites for a plebiscite. India
had put before the Commission three conditions for a fair plebiscite in
Kashmir:
Now
these three conditions were agreed to by the Commision and Pakistan, and India
stood by her promise. But at this stage a surprise was flung upon India. On.
August 30, 1949, Mr. Attlee and President Truman suggested to India and
Pakistan the idea of arbitration for the solution of the Kashmir problem. The
arbitrator was to be Admiral Chester Nimitz appointed by the UNO. The minority
report of the UNCIP revealed that this idea was absolutely British inspired.
India reacted immediately with vehemence against the “unwarranted intervention”
of England and America.
When
on December 17, 1949, the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan
reported to the Security Council, it was that three outstanding issues remained
unsettled; and these were the same three conditions for a plebiscite put
forward by India.
On the suggestion of the Norwegian member, General McNaughton of Canada was appointed by the Security Council to carry on private and informal conversations with India and Pakistan and to a mutually satisfactory basis for the solution of the Kashmir problem. He failed to meet with success, as he blundered over the same point and could not persuade Pakistan to abide by the three conditions of India for a plebiscite. Instead, he suggested ‘synchronized’ withdrawal of Indian and Pakistan troops from Kashmir. India held by her original contention; Pakistan refused to carry out her commitment; and the mediation fell through.
When
the Security Council again took up the matter, it decided a single mediator be
appointed between India and Pakistan who should make both the parties agree to
withdraw their armies within five months, before the plebiscite could take
place. Sir Owen Dixon, Judge of the High Court of Australia, was selected by
the Security Council to be the Mediator (April 12, 1950).
Sir Owen Dixon came to India, met the representatives of both the countries and then towards the end of August, 1950, he announced his proposals. He rejected the idea of an overall plebiscite and suggested a partial plebiscite. He held that during the time of the plebiscite the government of Jammu and Kashmir should be handed over to a U. N. authority. India gave short shrift to this “most astounding” and “extra-ordinarily illogical” proposal. India held that the proposal of handing over the administration of Kashmir to a Plebiscite Commissioner could be agreed to only by a government in a state of disruption, and the Governments of India and Kashmir were in a state of disruption. To agree to such a proposal was to give Pakistan 9°% success in Kashmir, as it would amount to a virtual diplomatic victory for Pakistan and she would surely make all possible use of it. Pandit Nehru has described the whole situation as that of ‘Alice in Wonderland.’
So the situation has gone back to where it was. It is baffling every attempt at solution. The main reason why the Kashmir issue suffered shipwreck is that the Security Council has failed to face the basic question. The Korean situation offers an analogy. The Security Council has declared North Korea as the aggressor and has refused to listen to the invader unless she withdraws from South Korea. Pakistan has admitted her aggression, and here the Security Council is giving all facilities to the aggressor. India fails to understand this discrimination. The United Nations Commission agreed that Pakistan armies should withdraw from Kashmir; but the Security Council has failed to compel the aggressor to go back. This attitude of the UNO has made public opinion in India doubt the sincerity of the UNO in solving the Kashmir affair. The Korean issue has demonstrated to the world with what unflinching determination India can fight for justice and call a spade a spade. The exigencies of the present world situation make it clear that it is a dangerous game to appease the aggressor. World peace requires that the statesmen or the world should remove cobwebs in their thinking and face facts boldly. Pandit Nehru expressed the view the other day that it is time “we started from the beginning and went back to fundamental realities”. The reason for all the bungling has been that the Security Council started on wrong premises and this led to wrong conclusions. From the very beginning India has taken a clear stand that Pakistan is the aggressor and must be forced to withdraw before a fair plebiscite can be held.
It
is hoped that the Security Council decides to focus attention on the
fundamental issue and do justice to India, if for nothing else at least for the
sacred cause of world peace.