Untangling Kashmir

The story of Kashmir is a tragedy in bloodshed for over a century; an endless tale of betrayals, British mercantilism, geo strategic intrigues and elastic ethics. The existence of a live Line of Control has the nuisance to reach a Fire Break Point. With American cooption of India as the lead strategic partner, Pakistan is subjected to relentless Coercive and Compellence Diplomacy. On a timeline of 100 years, Kashmir proves that no military force or technology can subdue hearts and minds.

Kashmir dispute involves eighteen million people in a time warp for over a century. It is surrounded by four countries three of which are nuclear. It is larger than 103 and more populous than 129 countries. Since 1947 over 175,000 Kashmiris have died at the hand of the Dogra and Indian occupation. The killing fields are still live.

Kashmir is a leftover of the British Colonial legacy of 19th century. The state of Jammu and Kashmir came into being on 16 March 1846 when the TREATY OF AMRITSAR was signed between Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu and East India Company to settle a territorial dispute arising from the First Anglo-Sikh War. People were traded off as slaves. Prior to Partition, Britain allowed the Congress politicians to tamper with the partition plans to facilitate occupation of Kashmir and other princely states.

Post-World War II, Pakistan was seen an important western ally in the evolving Cold War against communism. Pakistan’s political left that was the first group to render support to the Freedom Struggle in 1947 was sacrificed to appease USA, a capitalist power. As the geopolitics shifted, Kashmir was forgotten by the international conscience as it affected their global outreach.

Historians cite that Nehru’s agreement for the exercise of the right of self-determination was malafide. He was convinced Pakistan would fail in ten years. Plebiscite option was influenced by British. He failed to economically quarantine Pakistan. It is no coincidence that Nehru went back on his words in 1957 and then illegal legislations began. British archives made public indicate, that boundary lines were not drawn by Mountbatten but by Sir Frank Wavell. Britain therefore has a legal, moral and ethical responsibility it has evaded and shirked for nearly eight decades.

Legally, the Indian argument can be challenged on many counts.

The amended Government of India Act of 1935 provided in Section 6 that “a princely Indian state shall be deemed to have acceded to either of the dominion on the acceptance of the Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof” as a logical heir to the British Crown was illegal. India excluded the phrase “will of the people”.

In the Madhav Rao case, the Supreme Court of India found it strange that India inherited any aspects of the paramountcy exercised by the British Crown.

Indian Supreme Court in Premnath Kaul and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, in Magher Singh, observed that with the lapse of the British paramountcy, the princely Indian state of Kashmir became independent and sovereign in the fullest sense of international law a stand also taken by Pakistan.

It was Mountbatten’s responsibility as Governor General to ensure that clauses of the Independence Act of 1947 should not have been tampered by India. He should have challenged the Indian claim of paramountcy and declared the Instrument of Accession illegal.

After amending the 1935 Act, India prepared the Instrument of Accession. Manekshaw’s memoirs contradict the Indian assertion that the Maharaja wrote a letter on 26 October 1947 to the Government of India, incidentally the same day that Menon and Manekshaw landed at Srinagar. He also narrates that the entire entourage of Kashmiri Leaders led by Mr. Abdullah (allegedly threatening the Maharaja) India were present at the Srinagar Airport lighting the runway with pine torches to see off Menon. I will read an excerpt from Field Marshall Manekshaw’s memoirs:

It is pertinent to mention the congruency in the amendments to 1935 Act, Instrument of Accession and Indian constitutional legislation on Kashmir over a time line. Intention was to extend control of Kashmir to India, keep Pakistan bleeding and unstable.

India extended parts of Indian Constitution to Kashmir. Article 370 was inserted to support the idea of plebiscite. This made bulk of the Indian Constitution inapplicable to Kashmir and other princely states against the will of the people/rulers.

In 1964, India extended Articles 356 and 357 of the Indian Constitution to Kashmir to dismiss elected governments and impose central rule eroding Article 370. On 30 July 1986 India extended Article 249 to Kashmir. Now the Indian Parliament could enact laws on State list subjects. On 22 February 1994 Lok Sabha declared Kashmir an integral part of India.