Jammu and Kashmir’s Accession to India: Legal, Complete, and Irrevocable

[Guest guest]

indicjournalists, "Pranawa C. Deshmukh"

<pcdeshmukh> wrote:

Jammu and Kashmir's Accession to India: Legal,

Complete, and Irrevocable

 

Pranawa C. Deshmukh

Coordinator, Jammu and Kashmir Project, Bharat

Awareness Forum, Atlanta, USA

Convener, CIFJKINDIA (http://www.cifjkindia.org)

 

[An Edited version of this article has appeared in the

'Gurupaurnima' issue (Yugabda 5106) of 'The Hindu

Renaissance']

 

Abstract

Falsity of common beliefs about Jammu and Kashmir's

status following the Partition of India in 1947 is the

most understated obstacles to a just solution;

ignorance about the terms of partition and about the

legalities of the instrument of accession has rendered

the issue miserably complex. This article attempts to

remedy some of the falsehood in the disinformation

about the legality, completeness and irrevocability of

Jammu and Kashmir's accession to India.

 

I. Preamble - India's Constitution vis-à-vis Jammu and

Kashmir:

 

The constitution of the 14th Lok Sabha has thrown a

hung Parliament whose results have been analyzed

endlessly in terms of victory of `secularism' and

defeat of `Hindutva' politics. Political analysts do

not seem to be concerned that `secularism' is not

defined in the Constitution of India, following the

failure in 1978 of the 45th Amendment Constitutional

Bill, which sought to define `secular' to mean `equal

respect for all religions'. This Bill, as was

mentioned in the previous article [1,2], was passed in

the Lok Sabha, but was however voted down in the Rajya

Sabha, leaving `secularism' undefined in the country's

Constitution. Firstly, therefore, one can only wish

that the term `secularism' were defined unambiguously

so as to either preclude a political party from

contesting elections if the party is not secular, or

require unequivocal acceptance of each political party

considered eligible to contest Lok Sabha elections as

a `secular' party. Secondly, one can only wish that

the Constitution of India had spelt out the

admissibility of a foreign-born citizen to attain the

highest office in the Government of India, or,

perhaps, handed a dictum that a foreign-born citizen

cannot assume the highest office in the Government of

India, as is the law in countries like USA and Italy.

Thirdly, one regrets that the definition of the term

`Temporary" is not provided in the Constitution of

India. The present article (along with the next two

articles in the current series) will establish the

fact that the root cause of the Jammu and Kashmir

imbroglio is the unfounded continuance of the

`Temporary Provision of Article 370 of the

Constitution of India', and not the legality of the

accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India: it is

complete, legal and irrevocable.

 

II. Historical Context of Jammu and Kashmir's

Accession to India: India, in the period 1900-1947

 

THR-JK1 [3] discussed the historical and cultural

evolution of civilization over several thousands of

years in India, which identified Jammu and Kashmir as

the very fountainhead of the Indian culture. We

examine now events leading to the partition of the

subcontinent in 1947 and scrutinize the status of the

State of Jammu and Kashmir. We shall see that Pakistan

had no historical, cultural, moral or political reason

to aspire for its own existence as late as of July 10,

1946; and much less had any reason to have any claim

on Jammu and Kashmir as per the terms of the partition

of the country in August 1947.

 

Under the British Raj, Jammu and Kashmir was ruled by

the Dogra dynasty, the last ruler amongst them being

Maharaja Hari Singh. The map shown below shows India

on the eve of August 15th, 1947. Shaded areas in this

map were made up the `Princely States', a total of 562

in number, Jammu and Kashmir amongst them, and were

ruled by the Indian Princes, Kings, Maharajas, Diwans,

Nawabs and Sardars. The British parliament did not

legislate for these States and for its people. The

blank, unshaded areas in the map constituted what was

called "British India" which was divided into seven

Provinces: (1) Bengal, (2) Bombay, (3) Central

Province, (4) North Western Province, (5) North-West

Frontier, (6) Punjab and (7) Madras.

 

[MAP: "British India" (unshaded portion, 40%). The

shaded territory comprised of 562 'Princely States'.

The British crown ruled over the Princely States but

the British parliament did not legislate for these

states]

 

"British India" constituted just about 40% of the

total territory that today makes up for India,

Pakistan and Bangla Desh. The rulers of the Princely

States had full internal autonomy. Some of them were

excellent rulers and looked after their subjects well.

There were also some who looked only after themselves.

The Princes reported to the Governor-General of India

who acted as the Viceroy, representing the British

throne. The Princes enjoyed autonomy within their

States, but required the Viceroy's permission to

travel outside. Against external invasion and against

internal mutiny, the Princes were offered British

protection. The British allowed the Princely rulers to

be the real rulers within their States while they were

really ruled by the British functionaries above them.

Mr. Mayo, Governor-General of India between 1869 and

1872 told his Lieutenant General: "Teach your

subordinates that we are all British gentlemen engaged

in the magnificent work of governing an inferior

race". The official British policy toward ruling

India consisted of the following strategic elements:

· Pact with the Princes, Maharajas, Nawabs etc.

· Suppression of the middle class.

· Indifference toward the well being of farmers,

working class and the poor people.

· Deliberate neglect of educational, economic and

social reforms.

 

 

Only about 40% of the territory came under `British

India' that the British parliament legislated for. The

remaining (shaded) territory comprised of 562

`Princely States' ruled by Princes loyal to the

British and which eventually acceded to India or

Pakistan through essentially identical `instrument of

accession'. The British crown ruled over the Princely

States but the British parliament did not legislate

for these states.

 

BRITISH INDIA IN THE PERIOD 1900 – 1930: BUILDING

WEDGES

 

The immediate backdrop of Hindu-Muslim tensions was

not the Mogul conquest of India during the preceding

centuries. On the contrary, it was the Hindu-Muslim

UNITY that provided the foundation for the war of

independence in 1857. The British broke this unity

clandestinely, thereby weakening India's freedom

struggle and also laying the groundwork for the

partition of India. In 1862-63, Elgin I, then Viceroy

of India, was advised by his secretary of state,

Charles Wood: "A dissociative spirit between the

Hindus and the Muslims must be maintained so that they

do not unite against the British as they did in 1857".

A later viceroy, Duffrin, encouraged the Muslims to

regard themselves as a politically distinct entity.

Understanding comprehensively the British engineering

of the Hindu-Muslim divide is a prerequisite in the

search for a fair and honest solution in the interest

of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. It was Bampfylde

Fuller (1854-1935) who initiated and maneuvered

Hindu-Muslim communal separatism. Curzon presided in

1905, over the partition of Bengal along communal

lines, Hindus in the west and Muslims in the east, and

Fuller was appointed as the Lieutenant Governor of the

newly constituted province of west Bengal. Fuller and

his successor, L.Hare, engineered an alliance with

some Muslim leaders and provoked Islamic political

ambitions in their minds. Others in this game were

Theodore Beck, T.Morrison and W.A.J.Archbold, the

first three being principals of the `Mohammedan

Anglo-Oriental College', the forerunner of the Aligarh

Muslim University, founded in 1875 by Syed Ahmad.

 

Muslim separatists innocently played into the hands of

British strategists like Fuller and Beck, and sought

communal segregation between Hindus and Muslims that

got formalized in the document ironically titled

`Reforms' of 1909 and authored by the then Viceroy

Minto and the Secretary of State John Morley. This

document, which for the first time introduced communal

wedges wrapped in the garb of a `reform', foreshadowed

the birth of Pakistan. The `Indian Council Act' of

1909 was heavily biased in favor of the Muslims. Even

Minto himself confessed: "…….if the Government of

India was biased in any direction, it was toward the

Mohammedan interest". How did the Indian National

Congress react to it? Congress was then under the

leadership of Gopal Krishna Gokhale, and did not

oppose the Morley-Minto reforms. Following the sad and

unwise communal partition of Bengal, during the period

when the Morley-Minto document was under preparation,

a few Congress leaders did however, express dissent

against the partition of Bengal and factors leading to

the Morley-Minto document. These voices of dissent

came from Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Madan Mohan Malviya and

some others. They protested and planned to take on

senior Congress leaders at the Congress session that

was to be convened at Nagpur in 1907. To avoid

confrontation on these issues, however, the Congress

establishment shifted the venue to Surat where they

expected a smoother meeting.

 

At Surat, the Congress party split, and Tilak was

ousted from the Congress. Tilak opposed the communal

partition of Bengal and thundered in Calcutta in 1906:

"We shall not give them assistance to collect revenue

and keep peace……we shall have our own courts and when

the time comes, we shall not pay taxes…..if you can do

that, you are free from tomorrow!" After the Surat

split, the Congress drafted in April 1908 a new

constitution and demanded `self-government for India

WITHIN the British Empire'. Tilak, on the contrary,

now ousted from the Congress, demanded `POORNA

SWARAJYA' i.e. `Total Freedom', for which he was sent

to a six-year jail term, from 1908-1914.

 

HINDU – MUSLIM UNITY, DESPITE BRITISHER'S BUILDING

WEDGES:

 

In 1914, World War I broke out and world events

affected political alliances in India. Turkey, a

Muslim country, entered into war against the British,

and the Indian Muslims quickly aligned with the Indian

Hindus against the British. A champion of the

Hindu-Muslim unity at that time was none other than

Mohamed Ali Jinnah! Along with Bal Gangadhar Tilak,

who had rejoined the Congress after Gokhale died in

February 1915, Jinnah dreamt of such camaraderie

between Hindus and Muslims that he hoped that having

separate electorates for Muslims would soon become

redundant. It might interest many to know that, when

the British accused Tilak of treason, he chose,

amongst many alternatives, Jinnah to defend him [4].

Such was the trust between Hindus and Muslims, between

Tilak and Jinnah! By 1919, under the leadership of

Tilak and Jinnah, the Hindus and Muslims were one man

against the British. On March 20, 1919, the police

opened fire on a joint procession of the Hindus and

Muslims proceeding towards the Jama Masjid and led by

the Arya Samaj leader Shraddhanand. Never before was a

Hindu given a pulpit of a mosque to address the

Muslims. Hindus and Muslims drank water from the same

cup, and chanted `Vande Mataram' and `Allah ho Akbar'

in unison. On April 13, 1919, at the Jalianwalah Bag

in Amritsar, General Dyer fired 1650 rounds of

ammunition for 10 full minutes to scare a civilian

gathering of 20,000 people: men, women, children and

the old. The British censured General Dyer's act, as

we are emphatically told, and cleverly shown in

Richard Atenborough's `Gandhi', to illustrate the

British sense of justice and humane consideration.

What we are not told is that this very act of General

Dyer was later supported and ratified by the British

parliament! Hindus and Muslims fought the British

together against the massacre at Jalianwalah Bagh.

 

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi had returned in January

1915 from South Africa, and had by then developed a

very aggressive form of non-violence and

non-cooperation to oust the British. One of his early

endeavors was to lead the Khalifat movement, sponsored

by the Ali brothers. Gandhi had in fact combined the

protest against the Jalianwalah Bag massacre with the

Muslim protest against the British move to take charge

of the Khalifat, i.e. the custodianship of the Kaaba,

from the Ottoman Sultan after his defeat in the First

World War. Gandhi's objective was to exploit the

common grievance of all communities against the

British to enthuse Hindu-Muslim unity against the

British. Jinnah himself had championed the

Congress-League pact of 1916. Such expressions of

Hindu-Muslim unity were not isolated. The harmony

continued, and distinguished leaders sang its glory.

Sarojini Naidu recited her poem of Islam at the

All-India Muslim Educational Conference at Pune in

1936. Muslim philosophers were equally committed to

Hindu-Muslim unity. Madani, President of Jamaitul

Ulama-I-Hind asked Muslims to unite with the Hindus

against the British. He quoted from the Quran and from

the life of the prophet to underscore his claim that

it was completely in accordance with Islam that

Muslims must join Congress efforts against the British

to free India. Dr.Mahmud Iqbal composed and sang the

supreme glory of Hindustan Hamara, Sare Jahan se

Acchan. Mohamed Iqbal was often suspected to be

anti-Hindu, which he was not, though he certainly was

pro-Muslim. Iqbal wrote for example, that "God loves

all creatures alike, Be they believers (in Allah) or

otherwise". Quite in contradiction to popular belief,

Iqbal had not supported partition. He made this clear

in a letter to the London Times, and furthermore, just

few months before his death in 1938, he declared in a

speech given on the All India Radio that the unity and

brotherhood of man was above race, nationality, color

or language.

 

Amidst these events, Gandhi's strategic technique

played a significant role in forcing the British to

surrender power in India. Key elements of Gandhi's

strategy were:

· To renounce all honorary positions and titles

awarded by the British.

· To resign from all remunerative jobs in the service

of the British government.

· To boycott the British legal and education system.

· To resign from all jobs in the police and military

forces.

· To refuse to pay all taxes to the British.

 

One can see clearly that these techniques were earlier

voiced by Tilak and were so sharp that no foreign rule

could thrive against such measures of non-cooperation.

The Congress, now under Gandhi's influence, declared

`Independence Day' on January 26, 1930, and on March

12, 1930 Gandhi set out on the Dandi-Yatra to break

the salt tax law. In the following 5 months, 60,000

Indians courted arrests in defiance of the salt-tax

law.

 

BRITISH INDIA: 1930-1942 – "QUIT INDIA!"

 

The would-be creator of Pakistan, Mohamed Ali Jinnah,

by then had divorced his nationalist wife, left the

Congress in 1928, and by 1932 he gave up politics to

settle in London and practice law! The British had

indicated squarely that they were coming to terms with

their impending surrender of power in India. No Muslim

leader considered a division of India, Jinnah himself

unconcerned in London! Winston Churchill however was

opposed to surrendering power in India. He declared:

"We are there for ever!" The British enacted the

`Government of India Act of 1935' which extended

separate electoral privileges to the Muslims and

recreated a situation that was tilted in favor of the

Muslims. Jinnah woke up from his retirement and found

that the Hindu-Muslim unity that he had earlier

represented was far less politically attractive than

becoming a champion of the Muslims. In his new garb,

Jinnah returned in 1935 from London and declared that

Muslims were not safe any more amidst the Hindus.

`Islam was in danger', he announced, and appealed in

the name of Allah and the Koran. Jinnah was made the

permanent President of the Muslim League! He got full

support from prominent Muslim leaders like Liakat Ali

Khan. On September 3, 1939, without even consulting

the Indian leaders, Viceroy Linlithgow announced

India's participation in World War II against Germany.

Nehru asked Jinnah to protest against this British

indifference towards India, but Jinnah chose to keep

quiet and as a reward started gaining concessions and

patronage from the British and the western world.

Jinnah developed his idea about a separate state only

after 1939. He hurriedly studied the Balkanization of

Europe and on 24th March 1940, got the Muslim League

to approve a plan for a separate Pakistan. Right until

then, there was no reason or plan for a separate

Pakistan, which too was given up in fact as late as in

1946, in the Cabinet Mission Plan!

 

On August 8, 1940, a vague document arrived from

Briton at the office of Viceroy Linlithgow. It

referred to giving a `dominion' status to India, but

did not speak of the mechanism to do so. It gave

everything the Muslim League had asked for, and

nothing that the Congress had asked. In retaliation,

Congress under Gandhi, took to `Satyagraha' and 30,000

Congressmen courted arrests. In December 1941 Japan

attacked Pearl Harbor, and captured Singapore in

February 1942. A month later, they took Rangoon and

the war had moved to India's doorsteps! Churchill sent

a Cabinet Secretary, Stafford Cripps, to India with

limited authority to work out a plan for India that

would involve irreversible and numerous divisions of

India that would provide for separate Muslim States

and also separate independent Princely States. On July

6, 1942, Gandhi demanded that the British `Quit India'

and `purify themselves' by surrendering power in

India.

 

AFTER THE "QUIT INDIA" MOVEMENT, i.e. after August

1942

 

By October 1943, Wavell replaced Linlithgow as the

Viceroy, and `divide and quit' replaced the `divide

and rule' policy. Notice that there still was no issue

yet related to the formation of Pakistan, much less

about its borders to include any part of Jammu and

Kashmir! This was a tragic period for India, for the

famine in Bengal took two million lives. By 1944, the

Muslim League had become quite weak. Jinnah had

considerable opposition even within the Muslim League.

The Sind leader, Allah Baksh was a formidable rival to

Jinnah; his public speeches would now attract only a

few hundred now, as opposed to a hundred thousand in

previous years. Jinnah retired from politics, a second

time now, and this was just three years before August

15, 1947! Later, however, instead of letting Jinnah

fade away, Gandhi invited him for talks, and this

brought Jinnah back into prominence and created

needless and damaging political imbalances.

 

THE CABINET MISSION PLAN, MAY 16, 1946

 

In March 1945 Viceroy Wavell brought a formula for

`independence' from England, and convened a conference

in Simla in June 1945. Despite the Congress having a

Muslim (Moulana Azad) for its President then, Jinnah

insisted that his Muslim League be regarded as the

sole representative of the Muslims. The British

administration was overtly pro-Muslim and permitted

this ridiculous demand by Jinnah to gain ground. In

the progression, however, Wavell became a scapegoat

for the failure of the talks while his council,

consisting of some who Nehru called `English Mullahs',

advised Jinnah behind closed doors. On February 19,

1946, when the Labor party was in power, Prime

Minister Atlee sent a delegation consisting of

Pethick-Lawrence, Secretary of State for India,

Stafford Cripps, then President of the Board of Trade,

and A.V.Alexander, first Lord of Admiralty. On May 16,

1946, the British Cabinet Mission published its plan

that had for its parts, (i) a long-term plan toward

India's independence, and (ii) a short-term plan for

governance of the region till the British completely

surrendered power. Both the Congress and the Muslim

League accepted the long-term plan but had some

differences over the short-term plan. The long-term

plan rejected the division of India into two separate

sovereign states. Also, it did not provide for the

Princely States to secede from the Union of India. The

Cabinet Mission returned to England on June 29, 1946,

happy that both the Congress and the Muslim League had

accepted the long-term plan.

 

We shall see now how ostensibly a very minor event

suddenly changed the course of history. In May 1946,

the Congress had elections for its next President, at

the end of Moulana Azad's term. Sardar Vallabh Bhai

Patel was to be elected, but Gandhi asked him to step

down in favor of Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru addressed a

press conference on July 10, 1946, in Mumbai,

following a meeting of the Congress of which he was

now the new President. Right to this day, the

amputation of India was not on the cards. The unity of

India was not threatened in the then approved Cabinet

Mission Plan. To satisfy some Congressmen over some of

their concerns regarding the Cabinet Mission's long

term plan, Nehru announced at this press conference

that certain aspects of the long term plan were not

resolved. This gave Jinnah the opportunity to claim

that the Congress was "pettifogging and haggling…..and

could not be trusted". Jinnah called upon the Muslim

League to demand for Pakistan, reject the Cabinet

Mission Plan, and called for a civil war against the

British and against the Congress on August 16, 1946,

which he declared as the `Direct Action Day'. 5,00,000

Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs got killed in the violence

following Jinnah's call for `Direct Action Day'.

Viceroy Wavell was left with no choice, since the

Muslim League had declared only defiance, to invite

the Congress alone to form the interim government that

would govern till the `already approved' long-term

plan of India's independence could be implemented.

Realizing however that an interim Government without

the Muslim League would cause only more bloodshed, and

out of sheer exasperation, Nehru invited Jinnah and

some other Muslim League members to join the

short-term interim Government. The Muslim League

members would not cooperate with the Congress on the

simplest of things, and both Patel and Nehru

helplessly, out of frustration, reconciled with the

eventual formation of Pakistan.

 

Jinnah, much as he was possessed of being called

`Quaid-I-Azam' (The Great Leader) of the Muslims, had

ironically a life-style that was completely

Un-Islamic: he used to drink whisky, eat pork, and

would treat the greatest Ulamas with contempt, as

reported by a distinguished Muslim scholar, Rafiq

Zakaria [4]. He was completely insensitive toward the

masses: Once, when his train had stopped at a station

and people gathered shouting slogans "Quaid-I-Azam

Zindabad', Jinnah came out of his First Class

compartment and shouted at them: "You fools, don't you

realize I was sleeping? Go away now!" Muslim scholars

who regard Islam as a compassionate religion could

never understand, let alone endorse, Jinnah's ways

[4]. {Likewise, a number of Muslim scholars have

expressed their anguish over Pakistan's Un-Islamic

ways with regard to Jammu and Kashmir. For example,

S.E.Hassnain wrote a number of articles in Bombay's

Urdu press, recalling Islamic rules about warfare and

Koran's injunctions to abide by solemn pledges,

lamenting that Pakistan's surreptitious raids in Jammu

and Kashmir were (as they continue to be) Un-Islamic.

Several other Muslim scholars, Chagla, Hamid Dalwai,

Habib etc. have deplored Pakistan in the same manner.

}

 

TERMS OF DECLARATION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF INDIA

 

Prime Minister Atlee declared, on February 20, 1947,

that Briton would transfer power by June 1948, by when

the Congress and the Muslim League were to resolve

their differences and accept some plan. Atlee declared

that if no comprehensive plan were put forth, then

power would be transferred to one or more governments

in different regions (as per their `divide and quit'

policy). Churchill, who always remained India's enemy

and would never agree to surrender power to India,

condemned the Atlee government for its resolution "to

transfer power to India's politicians who were men of

straw of whom in a few years no trace would remain".

The same day, the British Government recalled Wavell,

only because he was committed to surrendering power to

a united India, and replaced him by Mountbatten as

India's (last) Viceroy. Wavell has reported in his

diary that Churchill wanted him to divide India

"Between Hindustan, Pakistan and Princestan"; hence

Churchill's brief to Mountbatten: If the British could

not hold India, it was best to divide her. On February

20, 1947, the British Prime Minister Atlee had

declared in the House of Commons that they would quit

India no later than June 1948. Mountbatten advanced

this date to August 15th, 1947. He was mindless of the

welfare of the subcontinent, and only abused the

occasion for self-glorification. He was the Supreme

Allied Commander in the region when Japan surrendered

on August 15th, 1945, at the end of World War II. On

choosing the date of transfer of power to fall on the

second anniversary of Japan's surrender, he wanted, as

the last Viceroy, to link two great acts: his personal

glory, and India's tragedy [4]. Congress was not left

with sufficient time to iron out its differences with

the Muslim League and make it see that one nation,

rather than two nations, would safeguard the Muslim

interests best. The `two-nation theory' merely fed the

power hungry Jinnah, who ironically was neither a

practicing Muslim nor a sympathizer of Muslim woes.

 

Communal riots broke out in February-March, 1947, and

the Congress demanded the partition of Punjab and

Bengal on communal lines in the hope that this would

stop violence. Patel and Nehru were advised by

V.P.Menon, the Reforms Commissioner and Constitutional

Advisor to the last three Viceroys (Linlithgow,

Wavell, Mountbatten), that the Cabinet Mission Plan

would not work and that it would therefore be better

to concede to the Muslim League its demand for

Pakistan. India would be disintegrated. Atlee's

deadline of June 1948 was advanced to August 15, 1947.

V.P.Menon proposed the `TWO-DOMINION of INDIA and

PAKISTAN' plan that was accepted by Mountbatten and by

Nehru on May 11, 1947. On June 2, 1947, the

Menon-Mountbatten plan was accepted by Nehru,

Kripalani and Patel on behalf of the Congress, by

Baldeo Singh on behalf of Sikhs, and by Jinnah (by a

nod!) on behalf of the Muslim League. India was

partitioned. The sufferings of those who migrated, and

of those who could not, will not be recounted here. It

was a colossal human tragedy that enabled Jinnah to

luxuriate in his new position as the First Governor

General of Pakistan. At the mid-night of August 14 and

15, 1947, India regained her freedom, and Pakistan was

born.

 

 

The Historic Meeting at Simla of June 2, 1947. Seen in

the picture are Baldeo Singh, Kripalani, Patel, Nehru,

Mountbatten, Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan and Sardar Abdur

Rab Nishtar. Also (standing), Eric Mieville and Lord

Ismay.

 

III. Independence, and the status of the `Princely

States':

 

The Indian Princely States were left free to decide if

they would stay independent or join one of the two

countries. The British Government's ruling, contained

in His Majesty's Government's statement of June 3,

1947 was clear: "…the decision announced about the

partition relates only to British India (unshaded

parts the above map) and that their policy towards the

Indian (Princely) states….remains unchanged". There

was no provision to influence the destiny of the

Princely States with regard to any communal/religious

factor, which was the governing factor for the

partition only of `British India' (unshaded part of

the above map). The future of the 562 Princely States

was completely, exclusively and irrevocably to be

determined by their monarchs. Sardar Patel led a

marathon and magnificent campaign that can be compared

perhaps only with the unification of India by the

Mouryas or the Guptas, and got most of the Princely

States to take suitable decisions. The 562 Princely

States, occupied roughly 60% of the territory that now

makes up for India, Pakistan and Bangla-Desh. The

Princely States were encouraged to accede to either

Pakistan or to India as per the wish of their rulers.

It was expected, naturally, that the rulers keep in

their minds the interests of the subjects they ruled

over. Given the treatment handed to the Muslims from

India who went to Pakistan, it can be easily imagined

that any Government of Jammu and Kashmir would opt for

India, as happened eventually.

 

Pakistan was conceived and formed as a Muslim state.

India was not, by default, formed as a Hindu state.

Most of the Princely States acceded to one or the

other country in a very dignified way, governed by

simple logistics. However, there were some exceptions.

Kalat, in Baluchistan, which had obvious geographical

compulsions to accede to Pakistan, and Junagadh to

India, chose to do just the opposite. These two states

would be completely landlocked well inside the country

they would not belong to. The State of Bahawalpur,

which had a common boundary with both India and

Pakistan, was seeking to accede to India, while the

Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir took no

immediate decision.

 

IV. Jammu and Kashmir's Instrument of Accession -

Legal, Complete, Irrevocable:

 

India refused the proposal by the Khan of Kalat, and

also rejected the overtures of Bahawalpur, since they

were not fully in accordance with the guidelines laid

down for the principle of accession. (The Khan of

Kalat later revolted against its accession to Pakistan

and was arrested by the Government of Pakistan in

1958). The Jammu and Kashmir Maharaja marveled on the

possibility that his monarchial control over Jammu and

Kashmir would continue as it did under the British,

with India instead of the British at whose mercy he

would rule. He therefore sought a `Standstill

Agreement' with both Pakistan and India. Sardar Patel

sent a message to the Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu and

Kashmir, with none less than Mountbatton himself, that

if he were to accede to Pakistan, India would not take

it amiss. It is clear that (a) if the Maharaja wanted

to betray his subjects and accede to India, he had an

opportunity in August 1947 itself, and (b) if there

was any reason to suspect that his subjects' interests

would be best served by acceding to Pakistan, this too

could have been achieved in August 1947 itself. The

public opinion in Jammu and Kashmir at that time did

not require the Maharaja to betray his people; at no

time in the history of the region have the people of

Jammu and Kashmir felt that their interests would be

better served as part of Pakistan. The only reason for

Maharaja Hari Singh to differ signing the Instrument

of Accession by 15th August 1947 was his fond hope to

keep monarchial power with himself after the British

were forced to surrender power in the subcontinent.

 

Considering the location of Junagadh, landlocked deep

inside the current Gujrat State and nowhere close to

the border with Pakistan, it comes as a big surprise,

that Pakistan accepted Junagadh's accession to it.

India sent a telegram to Pakistan on September 11,

1947, to consider Junagadh's accession as provisional,

to be decided by a plebiscite. This was not replied to

for a long time, and Pakistan replied only on October

5th stating that at the next meeting of the two

government representatives, the issue of the

plebiscite to be carried out by "any State or States"

would be discussed. Obviously, on October 5th,

Pakistan was anticipating a situation (namely the one

in Jammu and Kashmir) it knew would develop, and in

fact, forced. On October 24, in another telegram,

Pakistan told India: "Junagadh was not the only State

regarding which the question (of plebiscite) arises".

A plebiscite was held in Junagadh, and 190,870 out of

the 200,569 eligible voters went to poll: more than

95% voting! Only 91 votes went in favor of Pakistan,

and 190,779 voted for accession to India. Public

opinion in Junagadh was clearly unanimous. Pakistan's

lies on Junagadh (and also Hyderabad) have been

comprehensively exposed [5] and we shall not detail

the same. In Jammu and Kashmir, at that time, public

opinion was neither unanimous nor bipolar: it was

neutral and undecided. Maharaja Hari Singh, as the

ruler, alone had the constitutional authority under

the British monarchial system that administered the

Princely States to take a decision in this matter.

Pakistan was not confident that public opinion in

Jammu and Kashmir was in favor of joining it, and

therefore dare not rely on a plebiscite in Jammu and

Kashmir. Foreseeing that a referendum in Jammu and

Kashmir would not guarantee a majority view in favor

of accession to Pakistan, Pakistan resorted to the

medieval ways of the Moguls, whose victims - rather

than dignified inheritors – forefathers of most of

their citizens were (and are). On October 22nd 1947,

Pakistan launched a full-scale invasion on Jammu and

Kashmir, though intrusions had begun almost

immediately following the partition of India on August

15th. "All Sikhs killed. All women raped" was the

military signal transmitted by the Pakistani commander

who attacked Skardu on September 6th to his

headquarters. Ample evidence based on the diaries of

Pakistani army officers and political leaders, in

addition to incriminating reports in a news-paper none

other than `Dawn', proves that the money, food, arms,

petrol, ammunition, uniforms, trained personnel,

soldiers and military officers of the army, were

provided by Pakistan for this invasion. Indian

diplomats have presented this evidence very ably to

the UN [6]. The invaders were driven by a lust for

loot, murder and rape (much as Pakistan did later to

East Pakistan before it broke out into independent

Bangla Desh). The victims were Hindus, Sikhs and also

Muslims (again, much like what happened later in East

Pakistan). In fact, the majority population of Jammu

and Kashmir being Muslim, it was the Muslim community

that suffered the most! There was public outcry

against Pakistan's atrocious misconduct. Muslim

scholars expressed disgust and shame about Pakistan's

inhuman conduct against fellow Muslims in the name of

religion. For example, fourteen Muslim scholars led by

Dr. Zakir Hussain [7], then Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh

Muslim University and later the President of India,

have lamented in a letter dated August 14th 1951 to

Dr. Frank P. Graham, United Nations Representative,

against the brutalities done by Pakistan against the

Kashmiri Muslims in following terms: "It is a strange

commentary on political beliefs that the same Muslims

of Pakistan who like the Muslims of Kashmir to join

them invaded the state, in October 1947, killing and

plundering Muslims in the state and dishonoring Muslim

women, all in the interest of what they described as

the liberation of Muslims of the State."

 

Solely in order to protect his people from the

atrocities of Pakistan's invasion, vested by the

authority in him as the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir,

Maharaja Hari Singh on October 26th 1947 abandoned his

`standstill' policy and acceded to India, employing

the very same `Instrument of Accession' that was used

by the other 561 Princely States [8]. Repeated

scrutiny by the UN demonstrated that the accession was

legal and complete. Narrates Bamzai [9]: "When the

Government of India sent its troops under

Lt.Col.D.R.Rai to Kashmir on October 27, 1947 (on

accepting J&K's accession) to save Kashmir from

Pakistan's invasion, there was widespread jubilation

among the citizens of Shrinagar and the inhabitants of

neighboring towns and villages….their morale was

high…they organized bands of volunteers to maintain

law and order…they collected all motor vehicles (for

use by the Indian army)…..local drivers were at wheels

ready to risk their lives in defending their

motherland."

 

Sheikh Abdullah's `National conference', toying with

the idea of independence/autonomy, sent its senior

leader Gulam Mohammod Sadiq, right after August 1947,

twice to Lahore and Karachi, to seek Jinnah's

endorsement for Kashmir's `self-determination'. Jinnah

demanded, however, that the National Conference must

guarantee that `self-determination' will result in

accession of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan. Jinnah

warned Sadiq: "Sheikh Abdullah and his party must

close their shop as they have no role". The National

Conference however said "no" to Pakistan [10]. This

incidence is just one of the many instances that

expose Pakistan's hypocrisy. In complete contradiction

with its claims, Pakistan has never supported

independence to Jammu and Kashmir; it has always

wanted the State to become an integral part of

Pakistan. Later events that will be discussed in

subsequent articles will only confirm this further.

 

The legality and irrevocability of the accession of

Jammu and Kashmir to India has never been in any

question, except in Pakistan's ill-founded rhetoric

claims. Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, then Prime Minister of

India, stated in the Parliament of India on August

7th, 1952: "Accession (of Jammu and Kashmir) was

complete in law and in fact it is patent and no

argument is required because accession of every state

in India was complete on these very terms. When United

Nations commission accompanied by legal advisors and

others came here, it was open to them to challenge it.

But they did not ..". The Instrument of Accession was

not merely legal: it was the only legal and

comprehensive mechanism to determine the status of

Jammu and Kashmir as per the terms of Partition and

Independence. The legality, completeness and

irrevocability of Jammu and Kashmir's accession to

India was firmly established, but India failed to

consolidate Jammu and Kashmir's integration due to a

temporary measure (Article 370), of dubious value and

devastating consequences, that was taken then.

Controversies and records related to the saga of the

UN Resolutions, plebiscite issue (and all that!) will

be discussed in THR-JK4, and `Article 370' – its

roots, scope, limitations and consequences in THR-JK5.

 

References:

[1] THR-JK1: Jammu and Kashmir – Fountainhead of the

Indian Culture –

http://www.cifjkindia.org/main/pcd_002.html

[2] THR-JK2: Jammu and Kashmir's relevance to Hindu

Renaissance and to Hindu-Muslim (& `secularism')

Politics in India

[3] Lavakare, Arvind: The definition of `Secular' -

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/14arvind.htm

[4] Zakaria, Rafiq: `The Price of Partition' –

Published by Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai (1998)

[5] Lavakare, Arvind: Pakistan's lies on Junagadh and

Hyderabad -

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/jan/01arvind.htm

[6] Sharma, B.L. : B.L.Sharma: 'The Kashmir Story'

(Asia Publishing House, New Delhi, 1967)

(Author was Advisor on Special Duty to nine Indian

delegations to UN between 1948 and 1965)

[7] 14-Muslim-Scholars' (led by Dr. Zakir Hussain)

letter:

http://www.cifjkindia.org/main/legal_docs_008.html;

http://www.cifjkindia.org/main/jk_pok_000.html

[8] Jammu and Kashmir's Instrument of Accession to

India:

http://www.cifjkindia.org/legal_docs/legal_docs_001.shtml

[9] Prithvi Nath Kaul Bamzai: 'A History of Kashmir -

Political, Social, Cultural - from the Earliest Times

to the Present Day' (Metropolitan Book Co,. Pvt. Ltd.

New Delhi 1973)

[10] The Dawn, Karachi, Nov-17-1947

 

Scheduled Articles of the present series in `The Hindu

Renaissance':

 

THR-JK1: "Jammu and Kashmir: Fountainhead of the

Indian Culture" (Vijayadashami issue of THR,

September 2003)

THR-JK2: "Jammu and Kashmir's relevance to Hindu

Renaissance and to Hindu-Muslim (& `Secularism')

Politics in India" (published in

two parts: THR 2003 and Sankranti issue of THR 2004)

THR-JK3: "Jammu and Kashmir's Accession to India:

Legal, Complete, and Irrevocable" (present article)

 

 

 

 

 

 

New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages!

 

--- End forwarded message ---