by Amanullah Khan

The history of Kashmir issue is a painful story of shameful retractions from solemn pledges, of tall claims on the stage and devilish misdeeds behind the curtain, of might throttling the right, of misrepresentation of facts and misinterpretation of agreements and of colonialistic approach to a problem concerning decolonisation. It is also a sad story of a simple problem being changed into an imbroglio by vested interests to avoid its equitable solution, of the basic right of self-determination being sacrificed at the altar of the selfish interests of bigger nations and international power politics. Besides being one of the most interesting but dangerous byproducts of the partition of Indian Sub-continent, creation of Kashmir issue was also an ill-conceived plan to keep India and Pakistan fighting and weakening each other so that they could not get strong enough to pose any danger to outgoing but fast fading British colonialism. The British rulers of India applied two different methods to determine the future of British India, the areas of subcontinent ruled directly by the British like Punjab, Bangal etc. and of over 500 semi-independent princely-states, Jammu Kashmir State being the largest and one the biggest in population among them. Muslim majority areas of British India formed the new independent state of Pakistan and the rest the Republic of India whereas the future of the princely states was to be determined by their respective rulers, most of them despots.

All except a few princely states including Jammu Kashmir and Hyderabad (Deccan) joined India or Pakistan without much difficulty. Kashmir was ruled by a Hindu Maharaja but about 80 percent of its population was Muslim whereas the ruler of Hyderabad was a Muslim but majority of its population was non Muslim .The rulers of both these states wanted independence having friendly relations with both India and Pakistan but the latter two had different designs. India wanted Hyderabad to become her part and Kashmir to become a semi-independent state under Indian occupation whereas Pakistan wanted Kashmir to become her part and Hyderabad to become completely independent having close relations with Pakistan. To serve their purposes, both started behind the scene activities. Mahatma Gandhi paid what was termed as a private visit to Kashmir towards the end of July 1947 and through a Hindu cleric who was also the religious mentor of Maharajas wife, made the Maharaja change his mind regarding declaring Independence for his State and to think seriously of joining India. The Kashmir Muslim Conference had irritated him earlier by demanding accession of the State to Pakistan .So he decided to defer his announcement but in the meantime (on 11^th August1947) replaced his pro independence Prime Minister Mr. Kak by pro India Janak Singh and M. C. Mahajan in quick succession, the latter, in collusion with India’s minister for States Mr Menon, had already paved the way for making Kashmir part of India. In the meantime the Maharaja declared, pending announcement of his final decision about future of the State, to enter into  “standstill” agreements with both India and Pakistan. India dilly-dallied signing it whereas Pakistan signed it under which civil supplies and communications of the State went to Pakistan’s control. Smelling-behind-the scene India-Kashmir activities, some Pakistani authorities also started playing tricks. They initially disrupted the smooth flow of civil supplies to Kashmir to pressurize the Maharaja. On Oct.4, 1947 some Kashmiris declared formation of a Provisional Republican Govt. for the State overthrowing the Maharaja .The declaration was made in Rawalpindi (Pakistan). On Oct 22,Pakistani tribesmen entered Kashmir “to free Kashmiri Muslims from Hindu rule”. But their behavior was most uncivilized. On Oct 24, 1947 the Provisional Republican Govt. was reorganized and headed by Sardar M.Ibrahim Khan, a member of Kashmir Assembly from Poonchh. A number of officers and soldiers of Pakistan Army were also engaged in Kashmir in civil cloths along with tribesmen but Pakistan claimed that neither was any soldier in Kashmir nor had Pakistan govt. any control over tribesmen. This gross misstatement on Pakistans part cost her and Kashmiris a lot. When UN came to know of presence of Pakistani soldiers and army officers in Kashmir and also that Pakistan had considerable control on tribesmen, it asked Pakistan to withdraw its forces and tribesmen from Kashmir before any further step could be taken to solve Kashmir Issue and made it part of UNCIP resolution of 13thAugust1948. Pakistan accepted the resolution but refused to withdraw all its forces from Kashmir arguing that India would immediately occupy the areas vacated by Pakistan. As such UN resolution could not be implemented and Kashmiris remained deprived of their right to shape their own future. Had not Pakistan made that mis statement about presence of her forces in Kashmir and about her control over tribesmen, Kashmiris would have not been deprived of their basic right. (Pakistan‘s another misstatement in 1999 claiming that Kashmiri freedom fighters had occupied Indian pickets in Kargil whereas it was Northern Light Infantry (NLI), an integral part of Pakistan army comprising personnel from Gilgit Baltistan that had done so. This miss statement on the part of Pakistan changed the genuine freedom struggle of Kashmiris into terrorism in the eyes of the world). When Pakistani tribesmen had entered Kashmir and started loot, arson and killing non Muslims, the Maharaja had fled Kashmir. When he reached Jammu Mr. V.P. Menon, Indian minister for States visited him with an instrument of states accession to India and made him sign it under duress. The Maharaja nevertheless attached a number of conditions for States accession to India concerning continuation of his own and State’s semi-independent status and non-interference by India in its internal affairs. India accepted the accession including Maharaja’s conditions and sent her armed forces to Kashmir.

Maharaja’s conditions were neither publicized nor implemented by India. Not only that, he was deprived of his status as the ruler of the State and ousted from it never to return to the State even as an ordinary citizen and died in exile in Bombay, India two decades later. India took the Issue to the United Nations in December 1947 accusing Pakistan of naked aggression in Kashmir and calling upon the world body to make Pakistan vacate Kashmir. India also declared in the UN Security Council on January 15,1948 that after return of normalcy to Kashmir, India would let the people of Kashmir decide themselves whether Kashmir should remain with India, go over to Pakistan or declare independence and seek UN membership. She also pledged that she would accept Kashmiri people’s verdict. Pakistan had a counter attack on India and accused her occupying bulk of Kashmir through conspiracies and blackmail and accused of India of resorting to malpractices in the states of Hyderabad and Junagarh also. In the beginning the title of this Issue under discussion in the Security Council was ‘Situation in Jammu Kashmir” but on Pakistan’s request it was changed into "India- Pakistan Question" on January 20, 1948 This change in the title of the debate changed the very complexion of the issue and it started giving the impression of being a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan rather than an issue concerning Kashmiris right of self determination.

The UN Security Council appointed the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) which, after exchange of views with the govt of India and Pakistan (Kashmiri leadership was ignored altogether) adopted the first detailed resolution on Kashmir Issue on August 13,1948. It provided for ceasefire, withdrawal of all Pakistani forces (and tribesmen) and bulk of Indian forces from Kashmir and then a plebiscite under UN supervision to determine the future of Jammu Kashmir State. Both India and Pakistan signed it and ceasefire came to effect on 1^st January 1949, but when it came to withdrawal of armed forces, Pakistan refused to vacate Azad Kashmir saying that India would occupy it immediately. A proposal to let Pakistan retain a small force in Kashmir was rejected by India. This created the deadlock that could never be resolved hence the proposed plebiscite could not be held. Pakistan later asked UNCIP to change the wording of its resolution of August 13,1948 and got the scope of Kashmiris choice reduced to States accession to India or Pakistan thereby depriving Kashmiris of their right to opt for complete independence. In 1950-51 UNCIP reported its failure to resolve Kashmir issue to the Security Council, which appointed Sir. Owen Dixon as a sort of mediator. He after studying the issue in detail opined that a plebiscite as proposed by UNCIP could never be held in Kashmir and proposed the division of the State in three alternate ways. Both India and Pakistan rejected Dixon Plan, for different reasons though Two subsequent UN mediators also failed to evolve a practicable solution.

Then Soviet Union was forcefully crushing the popular movements of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. India was one of the most important leaders of the Third World and could create difficulties for the Soviet Union for mass massacres in its colonies .The Soviets obliged India by vetoing two Security Council resolutions on Kashmir providing indirectly though, for right of self-determination for Kashmiris. So the rights of Kashmiris (as also of the people of Hungary and Czechoselwakia) were sacrificed at the altar of international politics. The 1962-3 India – Pakistan talks on Kashmir saw a major deviation in Pakistan’s Kashmir policy when it agreed that in place of giving right of self-determination to Kashmiris the Issue should be solved on the basis of the inequitable doctrine of ‘give and take’. Though the talks did not succeed but they paved the way for the doctrine to become permanent base for efforts to resolve Kashmir issue and the Simla Agreement of 1972, Lahore Declaration of 1999 and Islamabad Joint Press Statement of 2004 between governments of India and Pakistan are based on that doctrine of ‘give and take’. None of these Indo Pak agreements makes even a mention of Kashmiris’ internationally recognized and pledged right of self determination. These agreements do not accept the people of Kashmir even as a party to Kashmir Issue whereas they are the most important and worst effected party. The doctrine of ‘give and take’ may solve some small disputes amicably but to subject the future of a nation of over 16 million people, more in number than the individual populations of as many as 133 independent nations of the world, to the colonialist and selfish whims of its neighbors, the democratic India and Islamic Pakistan, is most inhuman because this approach is neither democratic nor Islamic.

The last UN resolution about Kashmir was the unanimous Security Council resolution No 1172 of June 6,1998 in which it resolved to facilitate India and Pakistan to solve Kashmir Issue provided both agreed to it but India doesn’t accept external interference basically because her stand on Kashmir is too weak to be accepted by any unbiased personality or a group of them as reasonable or humane. During the past about half a decade Pakistan, its military ruler General Pervaiz Musharraf to be precise, has presented about half a dozen solutions to Kashmir Issue including that of giving complete independence to the whole Jammu Kashmir State proposed on Oct, 25,2004 along with the proposals of Joint India-Pakistan Control on Kashmir and giving the entire State under UN Trusteeship for a certain period of time. But the General retracted from his tall declaration under pressure from the army, his Muslim League (Q) and a section of the media .He has also proposed self rule, demilitarization etc and has also played some important role in starting intra Kashmir bus service. But the general opinion is that all these proposed steps are ultimately leading to division of Kashmir on the basis of turning the Line of Control (LoC) into permanent India-Pakistan border ignoring the wishes and aspirations of the Kashmiri people. For all practical purposes, India has all along stuck to its colonialistic and baseless claim of Kashmir being her integral part whereas Pakistan has been chasing the looter to share the booty. Whatever they may be claiming, both are far more interested in the proprietorship of maximum possible chunk of the State of Jammu Kashmir than they are in the wishes and aspiration of its people.