At the time of Indian independence, none of the princely states were
part of India. The Hindu ruler of Kashmir Maharaja Hari Singh wanted to remain
independent. In spite of entreaties from various quarters including from
Governor General of India Loius Mountbatten, the Maharaja continued to dither
and remain non-committal.
Myth I
Kashmir has never been an integral part of India: Arundhati
Roy
The Story
At the time of Indian independence, none of the princely
states — Hyderabad, Gwalior, Mysore, Baroda and Kashmir, to name a few — were
part of India. They were called princely states — quasi-sovereign states ruled
by the Indian princes under the "suzerainty" of the British. There were as many
as 568 states in India when the British decided to leave India.
In 1947,
under the Mountbatten Plan, they were given two options — either affiliate with
India or with Pakistan. Though most of the princely states thirsted for freedom,
that option was closed at the insistence of the Congress party. Though the
choice of which entity to join was left to the rulers of the princely states, it
was largely understood that the religious denomination of the majority of the
citizens and geographical contiguities of the states would be the preponderant
determining criteria.
Kashmir fulfilled both these paramount criteria to join
Pakistan — geographical contiguity with the newly-formed state and religious
domination of the majority of its citizens.
However, there was a problem: The
Hindu ruler of Kashmir Maharaja Hari Singh wanted something which was not on the
table — azaadi, or freedom from both India and Pakistan. He wanted Kashmir to
remain independent. In spite of entreaties from various quarters including from
the Governor General of India, Loius Mountbatten, the Maharaja continued to
dither and remained non-committal. And the situation reached a
stalemate.
Jinnah and Pakistan perceived this intransigence of the Maharaja
to be a clever ploy by India and Mountbatten to pluck Kashmir surreptiously from
Pakistan's grasp. So, in an operation that today can be seen as a precursor of
the Kargil Operation, Pakistan launched a military invasion of Kashmir on
October 22, 1947.
Pashtun tribals and irregulars, morally and logistically
supported by the Pakistan army, were sent in to force the Maharaja to accede to
Pakistan. The invaders reached the outskirts of Srinagar, the capital. And
threatened to besiege the city.
A frightened and panick-stricken Maharaja
radioed Delhi for military help. The Indian leadership argued that it would not
be legally possible to send in the Indian Army unless Kashmir acceded to India
formally. After another bout of resistance, the Maharaja finally yielded and
Mountbatten's aide V P Menon was sent to Srinagar to secure his signature on the
Instrument of Accession. Once signed (on 26 October 1947), the Indian Army was
airlifted to Srinagar and the Pakistani invaders were beaten back, but not
before they controlled about one-third of Kashmir.
The Reality:
As soon as
the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, Kashmir's accession to India
was complete in the legal and formal sense — the same Instrument of Accession
that was signed by more than 500 other princely states. That is a fact of
history, which cannot be disputed without stretching the truth. It's there is
black and white. In fact, it can be argued that it was Pakistan's folly of
invading Kashmir, overplaying its hand, which sowed the seeds of the Kashmir
imbroglio.
File photo of Jawaharlal Nehru with Sheikh Abdullah. When the
irregulars from Pakistan invaded India on October 22, 1947, Prime Minister Nehru
went to the UN in good faith to call on the world body to intervene and ensure
that Pakistan pull back its troops. Based on the Indian complaint and the
counter-arguments of Pakistan, the UN Security Council called for not only an
immediate ceasefire, but also a plebiscite to determine the wishes of the
Kashmiris.
Myth II
India refuses to uphold the UN-mandated plebiscite that gives
the right of self-determination to the Kashmiri people: Pakistan
The
Story
When the irregulars from Pakistan invaded India on October 22, 1947,
Prime Minister Nehru went to the UN in good faith to call on the world body to
intervene and ensure that Pakistan pull back its troops. Based on the Indian
complaint and the counter-arguments of Pakistan, the UN Security Council called
for not only an immediate ceasefire, but also a plebiscite to determine the
wishes of the Kashmiris.
Ignoring the advice of his Home Minister Sardar
Patel and Indian Army commanders that India should not agree to a ceasefire
before the area captured by the invaders was reclaimed, Nehru went ahead and not
only ordered an immediate ceasefire but also agreed in principle to the
plebiscite — a promise that has not been kept.
The Reality
This is the
instance used to castigate India for not only breaking the spirit of the UN
resolution but also ignoring the legitimate aspirations of the Kashmiri
people.
But just look at what UN Resolution 38 of 17 January 1948 actually
says about the run-up to the plebiscite —
"The Government of Pakistan should
undertake to use its best endeavours: To secure the withdrawal from the State of
Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident
therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting, and to prevent
any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid
to those fighting in the State".
Please read that again.
The much-bandied
resolution, used to whip India with by the critics, clearly states that Pakistan
will "withdraw" all "Pakistani nationals" and "tribesmen" who infiltrated on
October 22, 1947 from the soil of the whole of Jammu and Kashmir as it existed
then, without exception. This was the UN resolution's 'first condition' for the
beginning of the process towards the plebiscite.
Has that condition been
fulfilled by Pakistan? Has the land 'occupied' by the Pakistanis and the
tribesmen in 1947 been vacated? Isn't the reality that Pakistan occupied and
continues to occupy more than one-third of the territory of Kashmir?
As a way
to fulfill the mandate and hold the plebiscite, will Pakistan be willing to
vacate PoK now, 63 years after the resolution? The answer is written on the
wall.
For all intents and purposes the UN resolution on Kashmir is as good as
dead.
No wonder then that the wily but pragmatic General Musharraf gave up
the usual Pakistani harping on self-determination in Kashmir for a more
practical and doable out-of-the-box solution, which unfortunately is being
disowned by the present Pakistani government.
File photo of Pandit Nehru during his Kashmir visit in 1947. Ignoring
the advise of his Home Minister, Sardar Patel, and Indian Army commanders that
India should not agree to a ceasefire before the area captured by the invaders
was reclaimed, Nehru went ahead and not only ordered an immediate ceasefire but
also agreed in principle to the plebiscite, a promise that has not been
kept.
Myth III
Pakistan has always stood by Kashmir, as against the
brutality of the Indian security forces in the Indian side of Kashmir:
Pakistan
Pakistan in Kashmir
a) Pakistan has carved out the Northern Areas
(now called Gilgit-Baltistan, almost 72,971 Sq km) from Kashmir into a separate
administrative and political unit. This area, which was part of the undivided
Kashmir at the time of independence, has been 'annexed' by Pakistan, as it were,
and separated from Kashmir.
b) In 1963, Pakistan illegally ceded 5,800 sq km
in the Trans-Karakoram Tract to China. The Tract was part of the original state
of Jammu and Kashmir.
c) Pakistan actively encourages "other people" to
settle in PoK and have even allowed the Chinese a huge presence in
Gilgit-Baltistan, ostensibly for developing the infrastructure of the
region.
In contrast:
a) Territorially, the Indian state of Jammu and
Kashmir is the same entity that existed in 1947, except for the portions
gobbled-up by Pakistan/China.
b) The Freedom House Report, 2010, on the level
of 'freedom' in PoK characterised it as "not free', while the Indian side of
Kashmir was defined as "partly free".
d) No non-Kashmiri can buy as much as
an inch of land in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. There has been no attempt
by India to change the demographics or the state's ethnic character. The only
demographic change that has happened in the state has been the "ethnic
cleansing" of the Kashmiri pundits from the Valley. A mass exodus which has
largely been ignored by the media and the powers-that-be.
Therefore, there is
nothing much really that India has to feel defensive about. Whatever Arundhati
Roy or others may put out on the air.