[Reader-list] Kashmir Dispute - The Myth - Part 1

Fri Mar 6 10:32:39 IST 2009

   *Kashmir** Dispute - The Myth*

By Dr. M.K. Teng

Neither the composition of  the population of the  Princely States nor the
self-determination of their peoples was recognised by the British, the
Muslim League and the Indian National Congress, as the determining factor of
the future disposition for the states in respect of their accession.

After the 3 June Declaration, envisaging the partition of the British India,
Nehru demanded the right of the people of the Princely States to determine
their disposition in respect of their accession Mohammad Ali Jinnah rejected
Nehru's demand as an attempt to thwart the process of the partition.
Shortly, before the transfer of power, the Governor General of India, Lord
Mountbatten advised the Princess to keep in consideration the geography and
the composition of the population of the States in reaching a decision on
their accession. Mountbatten proposed to the Muslim League as well as the
Congress to accept the principles of the partition–geographical contiguity
and the composition of the population as the criteria of their accession.
While the Congress leaders indicated their inclination to accept the
proposals, the Muslim League leadership reacted sharply against the
proposals and characterised them as an attempt to interfere with the rights
of the Princes to determine the future of the States. At that time the
Muslim League was deeply involved in shadowy maneuvers to support the Muslim
rulers of several major States to remain out of India and align with
Pakistan. It has been pointed out in an earlier part of this paper that
Pakistan invoked the partition to legitimize its claim to Jammu and
Kashmiron the basis of the Muslim majority character of its population
after the
last two Muslim ruled States of Junagarh and Hyderabad were integrated with
India.

There is enough historical evidence available, which reveals that in
persuading the Congress leaders to accept the partition the British assured
the Congress leaders that after the Muslim majority provinces and regions
were separated to form the Muslim homeland of Pakistan, the unity of the
rest of India, including the states would be preserved and not impaired any
further.

The Indian leaders rejected the claim Pakistan made to the Muslim majority
States as well as the  Muslim ruled States, but they dithered when the time
to act and unite the States with India arrived. Instead of taking active
measures to bring about the unification of the States with India, they
resorted to subterfuge..

The Indian leaders turned to Mountbatten and not the people of the States to
bring about their  integration with India. Mountbatten steered the States
Department to accept a balance between the Muslim ruled States and the
Muslim majority States. The largest of the Muslim ruled States were deep
inside the Indian mainland. Neither Gandhi nor Nehru objected to the course,
the Indian States Department followed.

The Viceroy did not forgive Hari Snigh for having disregarded his advice to
come to terms with Pakistan. He refused stubbornly to deal with Jammu and
Kashmir independent of the Muslim States and in the long run did more harm
to Jammu and Kashmir than anybody else in India did. He was the main
proponent of the policy of isolation, the Indian leaders followed towards Jammu
and Kashmir. The way Mountbatten acted as the Governor General of India till
15 August 1947, and the way he acted as the Governor General of the Indian
Dominion after 15 August 1947, left wide space open for Pakistan to claim a
separate freedom for the Muslim of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of the
Muslim majority character of its population. Not many months after the
Security Council adopted its first resolution on Jammu and Kashmir in August
1948, the Muslims laid claim to a separate freedom for them on the basis of
the Muslim majority character of the population.

The Government of India and the Indian political leadership failed to rebut
the claim made by Pakistan and the Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir that the
state was on the agenda of the partition of India. Not only that, the
Government of India and the Indian political leadership failed to refute the
claim made by the Muslims of the state to a separate freedom, different from
the freedom that the Indian people were ensured by the Constitution of India
- a separate freedom which was determined by the theological imperatives of
Islam. The Indian leaders overlooked the fact that the conflict which led to
the partition of India was rooted in the claim the Indian Muslims made to a
separate freedom which drew its sanction from the precept and precedent of
religion.

The Muslim League followed a meticulously designed plan to use the Muslim
rulers of several major Princely States, situated deep inside the Indian
mainland to bring about the fragmentation of India. The Indian  leaders
walked into the trap when they tried to balance the accession the Muslim
majority state of Jammu and Kashmir with the accession of the Hindu majority
States ruled by the Muslim Nawabs like Bhopal, Hyderabad and Junagarh. The
strategy to refer the issue of the accession to the people of these States
tantamounted to the acceptance of the Muslim claim to a separate freedom,
the Two-Nation theory envisaged. The Indian proposals to Pakistan to refer
the accession of Junagarh with that Dominion, accomplished by the ruler of
the State on the eve of the transfer of power, was a tame recognition of the
Muslim claim to a separate freedom. When Pakistan made a counter-proposal to
hold a plebiscite in all the three States, the Government of India was
suddenly faced with a catastrophic choice. It promptly rejected the
proposals made by Pakistan.

The Indian Government, for unknown reasons, separated its offer to refer the
accession of the State to its people i.e. the Muslims for their endorsement.
Why did not the Indian Government propose to refer the accession of
Bhopaland Trancore to the Dominion of India, to the people of the two
States? The
rulers of both the States were opposed to join India and their people took
to the streets and forced them to accede to India. Hardly ten months after
the accession of the Jammu and Kashmir while the Indian armies were still
fighting to drive out the invading forces, United Nations foisted a
resolution on India which envisaged a plebiscite to determine its final
disposition in respect of its accession. The resolution of the Security
Council, virtually underlined the repudiation of the accession of the State
to India and opened the option for the Muslims of the State to exercise
their choice to join Pakistan. The Security Council Resolution was the first
step in the process of the internationalization of the claim of the Muslims
of the State to a separate freedom.  The Government of India cried hoarse
that it had rejected the Two-Nation Theory inspite of having accepted the
partition of India. But its commitment to refer the accession of the State,
accomplished by Hari Singh to its people was a tacit recognition of the
right to a separate freedom, which underlined the demand for Pakistan.

Another ten months after the August resolution of the Security Council was
adopted the Indian Government took a fateful step and formally recognised
the right the Muslims for Jammu and Kashmir to a separate freedom, when in
May 1949, it agreed to exclude Jammu and Kashmir from the constitutional
organisation of India. In November 1949, the Constituent Assembly of India
incorporated provisions in the Constitution of India which left out the
State from the constitutional structure which it had evolved for the
Dominion as well as the Princely States which had acceded to India  and
after years of labour. The special provisions for the State, embodied in the
Constitution of India, stipulated the application of only Article if the
Constitution of India to the State. A blanket limitation was imposed upon
the application of the rest of the provisions of the Constitution of India
to the State. The Union Government was empowered to exercise powers listed
in the Central list of the Seventh Schedule of the India Constitution only
in respect of defence, foreign affairs and communications which corresponded
with the powers delegated by the State to the Dominion Government by virtue
of the Instrument of Accession.

The Interim Government of the State, constituted by the National Conference
insisted upon the right to frame a separate constitution for the State,
which fulfilled the aspirations of the Muslims who constituted a majority of
its population. The Interim Government arrogated to itself unrestricted
powers and ruled the State by decree and ordinance. Within six years of its
tenure, it completed the task of the Muslimisation of the State by enforcing
the precedence of Islam and the Muslim majority in its social, economic and
political organisation. In 1953, the Interim Government claimed a separate
freedom for the Muslim ‘nation’ of Kashmir. The Indian leaders had conceded
to the Muslims the right to constitute a Muslim State of Jammu and
Kashmiron the territories of
India. Confronted by the demand for a Muslim State outside the territories
of India, the Indian leaders were flustered. They refused to countenance the
Muslim demand for a separate Muslim State of Jammu and Kashmir, which did
not form a part of India. The Interim Government was dismissed and the
National Conference broke up.

Pakistan, the Muslim separatist and pro-Pakistan Muslim flanks joined by a
large section of the leaders and cadres of the National Conference, called
for a plebiscite in the State, which enabled the Muslims to exercise their
right of self-determination. They claimed that they had acquired in
consequence of the partition of India and which India, Pakistan as well as
the United Nations had explicitly recognised.

The Muslim separatist movement led by the Plebiscite Front, committed itself
to an ideological framework which was based upon the distortions of the
history of the partition of India. The ideological commitments of the
Plebiscite Front underlined : *(a) *that the right of the Muslims to a
separate freedom enmated from the partition of India and the creation of the
Muslim homeland of Pakistan; *(b) *that the right of the Muslims to a
separate freedom transcended the accession of the State to India, brought
about by the ruler of the State; and *(c) *that as a consequence of the
partition of India, the Muslims, constituting the majority of the population
of the State, had acquired an irreversible right to exercise their option to
join the Muslim State of Pakistan.

In 1990, the Muslim Jehad initiated by Pakistan and the Muslim separatist
forces in the State, claimed their aims to be the unification of Jammu and
Kashmir with Pakistan on the basis of the Muslim majority character of its
population to complete the agenda of the partition of India. The Jehad
claimed that Muslims of the State, as the Muslims elsewhere in India, had
acquired a right to a separate freedom which the  Muslim struggle for
Pakistan had secured the Muslim nation of India.

The Indian Government and the Indian political class must realise that the
Muslims of the State did not acquire any right to separate freedom from the
partition of India, which brought Pakistan into being and any attempts to
arrive at a compromise with the Muslim separatists forces will lead straight
to a second partition of India. The Muslim claim to a separate freedom on
the basis of religious is a negation of the unity of India.

– To be continued

Source: Kashmir Sentinel, Panun Kashmir

__._,_.___