When historians assert that history is unforgiving, they mean that historical errors cannot be rectified. They have a cumulative influence on the future of a nation. The narrative of independent India is replete with such incidents. Articles 370 and 35(A) of the Constitution, which granted Jammu and Kashmir its special status and the authority to set its domicile regulations, were declared null and void on August 5, 2019. Although several political groups in Jammu and Kashmir have pledged to continue their fight for statehood. It was marked a momentous move in the history of Independent India that withdrew Jammu and Kashmir’s unique status, dividing it into two union territories and bringing Kashmir into line with the rest of India.
Additionally, the decision sparked a torrent of righteous rage, with misinformation campaigns alleging that the measure was unlawful and India suffocating Kashmir’s independence. This is large because most people still have no idea how Jammu and Kashmir obtained their unique status in the first place. It is critical to examine the historical context to appreciate the full impact of this choice.
Our narrative begins in 1947, the year of India’s division. There were 562 princely states, each ruled autonomously by a king or a nawab. During the British Raj, these Kings ruled princely states, and the British did not interfere with their internal affairs. A compelling question arose: what would be the princely states’ status? Most of them became part of India via the accession document, and some merged with Pakistan. Some retained their independence. The majority of them joined India via the accession instrument, while others chose Pakistan. The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir desired independence for his state primarily due to his disagreements with India and its Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru.
What disagreements did Nehru have with Sheikh Abdullah, leader of Kashmir’s first political party, the Kashmir Muslim Conference, now known as the national conference? Sheik Abdullah, on the other hand, desired to control Kashmir. According to reports, he desired a communist type of government. Thus, Abdullah began an agitation against the king in 1946, the Quit Kashmir Movement, which was modelled after the Quit India Movement. This agitation was motivated only by personal desire.
However, it was also nonsensical in that it was directed against an Indian, not an invading foreign army. Sheikh Abdullah desired the king’s departure from the valley. How did Nehru perceive it all? He was himself a Kashmiri Pandit, and he is claimed to have ignored Sheikh Abdullah’s initiatives. Nehru described Abdullah as his blood brother, a man above suspicion who could do no wrong. He was only operating in the best interests of Kashmir, a kingdom ruled by a Hindu ruler and populated mainly by Muslims. Bias was evident in an August 1945 comment made by Nehru at the annual session of the national conference. He is alleged to have stated that if non-muslims desired to live in Kashmir, they should join the national conference or leave the country. Without the participation of interpreters, no safeguards or weightings will protect them. Such occurrences and statements breed suspicion.
When the British decided to leave India in May 1946, Maharaja Hari Singh issued an arrest warrant for Sheikh Abdullah. Nehru interpreted this as an insult. The schism between him and the maharaja grew more comprehensive, with ramifications for Kashmir’s future. When the British left India, Maharaja Hari Singh was confronted with a choice: should he remain independent or join Pakistan or India? If he acceded to India, Pakistan would respond unfavourably; if he acceded to Pakistan, he would be loathed by the Hindus of Jammu and Kashmir. Sheikh Abdullah, who had his plans and the king, was in a dilemma, and that is when he received a letter from Sheikh Abdullah. Putting his pride aside, Abdullah pleaded to join the Indian union. Abdullah’s attitude changed primarily for personal reasons. If Maharaj had selected Pakistan, Abdullah’s political future would have been jeopardised had Pakistan’s leader, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, not regarded Sheikh Abdullah as a traitor and Congress Party agent. He was attempting to barter Kashmir with India for personal gain and power. This hate was expressed in a comment made by Jinnah, in which he referred to Abdullah as a big man who sings the Quran and exploits the populace.
Recognising Pakistan’s threat to his ambitions, Abdullah announced his willingness to work with Maharaj, resulting in Kashmir’s admission to India on October 26, 1947. Less than four days after Pakistani tribe members, backed by the Pakistani army, stormed Kashmir and made a hasty retreat to Srinagar. The destiny of the capital was hanging on a thread. The king signed the instrument of accession. Indian forces intervened. It liberated occupied lands and annexed Kashmir, but Pakistan’s provocations failed to deter its invaders. They remained stationed at the border, awaiting an opening.
According to some reports, their actions were directed by a British officer who served as Pakistan’s first commander-in-chief. These activities directly contradicted Britain’s resolve not to intervene between the two parties. However, they were nonetheless carried out, not only militarily but also diplomatically. Lord Mountbatten proposed to Jinnah that a plebiscite be held in Kashmir, a plan he was claimed to have devised on his journey from New Delhi to Lahore. Mountbatten expected India would consent to a vote, but the reality is that even Pakistan opposed it. Jinnah is claimed to have been adamantly opposed to a plebiscite, describing it as unnecessary and unwanted; hence, why would Mountbatten make such an offer, ostensibly to please Jinnah? How did India react to this illegal offer? India complied. It was the gravest blunder in Kashmir’s history. During a radio broadcast, India’s prime minister consented to a United Nations-supervised plebiscite in Kashmir, hoping that this would be the only way to stop the war. Pakistan leapt at the plan, hoping for a favourable vote in the Muslim-majority region.
However, this move drew both countries, notably India, into the vortex of international politics, effectively rendering Kashmir intractable. The complainant, in this instance, was treated similarly to how he would be treated in Pakistan as an aggressor. India’s cause was overshadowed by power politics, even though Kashmir’s accession to India was legal and Pakistan was no match for India’s military might in the war. Jawaharlal Nehru has admitted that this was an error. He stated, “The Kashmir dispute has caused us much distress. Great powers’ attitudes have been astounding. Several of them have demonstrated active support for Pakistan. We have not been dealt fairly.” He was correct. Petty politics flared as international tensions increased. Sheikh Abdullah was released from prison and appointed Prime Minister of Kashmir, in command of a transitional government. However, he immediately started an assault upon assuming control. He violated his promises and began agitating for Kashmir’s independence.
By 1953, Abdullah had developed a reputation for being unyielding and forceful. He turned against Prime Minister Nehru. His appeals for independence resonated with the valley’s populace, who became unaware that Kasmir had lawfully acceded to India. Fearful of another struggle, New Delhi began catering to Abdullah’s desires, and Abdullah attempted to bargain and blackmail. He made arrangements with India’s establishment, ensuring that Kashmir’s absorption with India remained unfinished.
Article 370 and section 35A are typical examples of such negotiations. They were incorporated into the Indian constitution, granting Kashmir the right to a separate constitution, state flag, and internal autonomy. These are powers that previous states lacked. Sheikh Abdullah appeared to be unconcerned about India’s overtures. He persisted in his campaign for Kashmir’s independence. In an interview, Abdullah stated that joining any side would not bring peace and that an independent Kashmir must be ensured. This was the genesis of the Kashmir conflict, which has resulted in betrayal, conspiracies, violent conflicts, wars, secession, and terror. Allow me to add that this is an India-created problem, a fight marked by numerous errors. The most egregious of these are allowing foreign countries to intervene in their internal affairs and allowing friendships to influence political decisions.
Discussion about this post