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 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:

1. Provision for the administration of the sparsely populated Northern districts.
2. Disarming of the Azad forces.
3. Withdrawal of Pakistan troops and nationals from 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 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 . 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 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.