Kashmir

Akshat Jain
Nov 7 · 5 min read

History

At the time of Independence, India had more than 500 provinces divided into two sets of territories, one directly ruled by British Crown, and the other under the suzerainty of British Monarchs and partial powers with the indigenous monarchs. It was an uphill task to decide what type of power-sharing arrangement would be made between these provinces and the Independent states after freedom. The Indian National Congress leadership was clear that Independent India would not recognize any concept like the divine right of Kings. In addition, India was supposed to be divided into two countries because of which the North-Western portion and Bengal of it were to be carved for a Muslim majority country as All India Muslim League felt that Hindu Muslim can’t coexist. So the provinces had three choices namely to either go with India or to go with Pakistan, or to remain independent. It was vital for India to ensure geographical contiguity due to economic and political considerations. Thus Sardar Patel and KK Menon started working tirelessly towards it. They offered two agreements namely Instrument of Accession which gave autonomy to Monarchs on all subjects but some key Subjects like Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade and a Standstill agreement which ensured that the status at which the different provinces are with the Union of India was to remain freeze. In dealing with the provinces there were several monarchs who created resistance and was dealt with namely Bhopal, Hyderabad, Travancore, Junagadh, Jaisalmer, and Jodhpur. Travancore, Bhopal, and Hyderabad were exploring the option to remain independent but eventually signed the Indian IoA. However, Jaisalmer and Jodhpur were in talks with Pakistan they also eventually signed the Indian IoA. In the end, India was able to secure a geographically contiguous state only with East Pakistan and Goa as an exception and over a period of next thirty years even Goa was included in the Union and East Pakistan became an independent state. Though there were two significant Provinces of Junagarh and Kashmir exact opposite of each other i.e. one with a Muslim majority and a Hindu King and the other with the Hindu majority population and a Muslim King which created interesting situations.

The king of the infertile state of Junagarh signed the Pakistani IoA. But the majority Hindu population was against it and established a temporary government. India notified the Pakistani government and provided the bare minimum administrative support. India was of the view that the people of the state should be given the right to determine and held a plebiscite. In which 99.5 % voted to remain in India and the Junagarh joined the Union of India.

At this time Kashmir had a Muslim majority, a Hindu King, and one of it’s native, as the Prime Minister of India. The king of Kashmir wanted to remain independent. But when Pakistan sent her man’s disguised as Kabilai. The Maharaja asked India for help to which India asked him to sign the IoA. The Maharaja complied, but native Kashmiri and the Prime minister of India declared that he would hold a plebiscite, although there was no legal requirement to seek such confirmation. India military entered Kashmir, took the situation under control. At this time the Indian government went to the UN and reported the Pakistani aggression. The UN suggested holding a plebiscite and set three conditions to hold the same to which India had some reservations but supported. The condition was for Pakistan to withdraw all the forces, India to reduce it’s military to a bare minimum and appointment of a UN administrator. Pakistan however never withdrew its forces and thus the plebiscite never took place. This is a very significant detail of the matter as it differentiates Junagarh with Kashmir. Whatever may be the rationale of Pakistan either the insecurity of Kashmiris demanding Independent state or strategy of not bringing the matter to negotiation table it was an important event of Kashmir history. And after holding several elections in election India has also dropped the idea of having a plebiscite.

Kashmir: The shared cancerous organ of India and Pakistan

Since Independence, India- Pakistan had disputes because of Kashmir. Both the countries had fought three wars and spent a lot of money on the defense due to the war-threat. In addition, on many occasions both the countries had compromised their positions on diplomatic fronts. The countries which share a common demographic, have a common origin and faces similar challenges are enemy states. And many nations had taken advantage of this on many strategic and diplomatic fronts.

Why India and Pakistan do not get it operated?

Apart from the lust for land both the countries had lacked the mass leader who could go against the public opinion and solve the Kashmir issue. Kashmir is geographically and strategically is important and in a neighborhood where countries are annexing land for territorial greed, it is not wise to recede land. Apart from this, both countries had their nationalistic fantasies of ‘Gazwa-e-Hind’ and ‘Akhand Bharat’, so it is difficult politically. On the contrary, many politicians on both the side had used this to gain popular support. Such big moves are only possible either at the time of adversity or at the command of a mass leader who does not source his/her support from invigorating popular feelings but from the genuine work for the public. The leader who could think and see which is not in the purview of the general public. A philosopher leader. Both countries have lacked such a leader since the crop of independence leaders.

My conspiracy theory

A very interesting development occurred in the last decade i.e. rise of a nationalist right-wing leader in India and the crisis in Pakistan coupled with again a sensible leader. What I wish to believe is both the leaders have negotiated and would appear to be tough. Maybe stage war and then citing the adversaries sit for negotiation to freeze the LOC. The two events which I think were significant were the Trump offer of negotiation and bifurcation of the Jammu and Kashmir into Jammu and Ladakh which is if LOC is not agreed upon Ladakh would be off the table while negotiation would be held on J&K and PoK.

What should India do?

Meanwhile what India should do. There were two options for India the liberal one i.e. to set Kashmir free and to respect the will of Kashmiri citizen or the conservative one i.e. to include it in the Union of India. As mentioned earlier we do not live in an ideal world and the first option is not feasible. With the second option, India is compromising the feelings of Kashmiris and will eventually face the resistance. As India has already chosen the second option it is now time for conservatives to realize that they have got what they have demanded and now they should explain the liberals that they are firm with their choice and the earlier option is not available, and they are ready to implement the solutions of liberals on top of it.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade