Accession of Kashmir to India is often compared to Accession of Balochistan to Pakistan. We take a look at the similarities and differences in the two accessions.
From 1846 to 1947, Jammu and Kashmir was a princely state under British suzerainty, ruled by a Maharaja. The state had a Muslim majority (with a sizeable Hindu minority) but suffered due to discrimination, forced labor without wages and high taxes [1].
Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh was the autocratic ruler in the crucial years of the Partition while Ram Chandra Kak was “appointed” as Prime Minister by the Maharaja. [2]
The primary political party in Kashmir was ‘All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference’ formed in 1932 by Sheikh Abdullah from the Kashmir Valley and Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas from the Jammu region. [2] In 1939 the party was renamed National Conference to give a more secular outlook.
However, with Sheikh Abdullah’s clear tilt towards Congress, Chaudhry Ghulam Abbas parted ways in 1941 and he revived the previous name Muslim Conference. While National Conference wanted to accede to India, the Muslim Conference wanted to accede to Pakistan.
In the 1941 Census 77% of the Kashmiri population was found to be Muslim and 20 % Hindu with the Hindus concentrated in Jammu and being very pro-Maharaja. They were also affiliated with the Hindutva group RSS. [4]
Muslim Conference was dominant in Jammu province whereas National Conference was dominant in the Kashmir Valley. Hindu-Sikh-Muslim riots in Punjab and Hazara led to a few thousand Sikh and Hindus reaching Kashmir between November 1946 and January 1947. [5]
The situation intensified in March 1947 and much larger violence was meted out to Jammu Muslims in September 1947 with the aid of RSS, the refugees and the Dogra army, with some even implicating the Maharaja directly. [6]
It was in this context that the Maharaja had to take the decision to accede to either India or Pakistan or seek independence. Sheikh Abdullah was imprisoned by him for his Quit Kashmir movement and he was inclined to remain neutral because he felt acceding to India would mean further trouble with Muslims whereas acceding to Pakistan would endanger the Hindu population. [7] [8]
Kak on the other hand was soft towards Muslim league [2] but not so soft so as to favor accession of Kashmir to Pakistan. [9] Sheikh Abdullah felt that Kak had assessed that Muslim-majority Kashmir was bound to accede to Pakistan. [2]
The Maharaja however came under the influence of his Deputy Prime Minister Batra, a Hindu Swami and his brother-in-law Nachint Chand both of whom wanted Kashmir to accede to India. Under their influence, Kak found himself dismissed on 11th August 1947. [10]
I am not going to discuss the military aspect of this accession as I want to write a separate article for it, however briefly I would say that by mid-September the Maharaja’s government faced a blockade of essential supplies from Pakistan which had reacted after the Poonch Uprising of Spring 1947.
On 19th September, Maharaja Hari Singh sent Mehr Chand Mahajan, his next nominee PM, to India for supplies. He also stated that the Maharaja wished to accede to India. Nehru placed the condition of Sheikh Abdullah to be released. Only then would India accept Kashmir. [11] [12] Abdullah was released on 29th September.
With involvement of Pakistani tribes and facing mutiny from Muslim troops in the Dogra Army, the Maharaja asked for Indian troops as his troops were outnumbered. Mountbatten, who was initially in favor of Kashmir acceding to Pakistan [13] now insisted to Nehru that Maharaja accede before troops could be sent. [14] [15]
The Maharaja acceded to India on 26th October 1947. [14] [15] Nehru stated that while the accession was accepted, a referendum was necessary to accurately gauge public opinion. Hence it was provisional. [16] National Conference however accepted the accession unconditionally. [17]
Jinnah was incensed and remarked that India had acquired Kashmir through fraud and violence. [18] Mountbatten met him on 1st November and expressed his wish for a referendum in every contentious state. Jinnah rejected the offer. [19]
Critics like Noorani have stated that Jinnah squandered his leverage but Jinnah stated that “the average Muslim would never have the courage to vote for Pakistan” [unless there was simultaneous troop withdrawal and Sheikh Abdullah was removed]. [20]
Mountbatten offered United Nations to hold the plebiscite which was again rejected by Jinnah fearing lack of international support. He asked the Governor Generals (in plural) to conduct it instead which Mountbatten rejected. Sheikh Abdullah wasn’t removed either. [20]
Nehru and others in the Congress feared that the ‘temporary accession’ would turn the Muslim population against them. They wanted to make it permanent on their own terms as quickly as possible. With Sheikh Abdullah with them and not demanding a plebiscite, they felt no need to entertain the thought further.
V. P. Menon admitted in 1964 that India had been dishonest on purpose on the issue of plebiscite. [21] A. G. Noorani also blames Nehru as the main culprit for plebiscite not taking place. [22]. Sheikh Abdullah was appointed Prime Minister and gave a very impassioned anti-Pakistan speech in UN.
He however soon ran afoul of Congress, was dismissed and imprisoned. By 1955 he was back to supporting plebiscite as Patron for Jammu and Kashmir Plebiscite Front. [23] However, he gave up the Plebiscite again in 1974 in return for becoming CM of Kashmir. [24]
The reader is urged to compare the accession of Balochistan with Kashmir. In Balochistan, the Shahi Jirga voted for Pakistan, while in Kashmir no single referendum, limited or full electorate, took place.
In both Kashmir and Balochistan the autocratic ruler wanted to have his own way but in Balochistan neither he, nor Pakistan Army, resorted to killing indigenous Baloch people as was the case with Dogra Army.
The full matter of the Indo-Pak War in Kashmir, including the UNSC 47 and its terms vis-à-vis the plebiscite is for another article but I hope Indian literaturet singularly focused on the tribals from FATA has been sufficiently answered. The matter was political; Nehru, Maharaja and Sheikh Abdullah were the main culprits.
References:
[1] John L. Esposito’s article “Kashmir” in The Islamic World: Past and Present Oxford Islamic Studies Online
[2] Rajesh Ankit, “Forgotten men of Kashmir”, Himal South Asian
[3] Sheikh Abdullah, M. Y. Taing, ”Atish-e-Chinar”, pp. 156-160.
[4] Balraj Puri, “The Question of Accession”, Epilogue, Vol 4, pp. 4–5
[5] Prem Shankar Jha, “The Origins of a Dispute: Kashmir 1947, pp. 61
[6] Ilyas Chattha, “Partition and Locality: Violence, Migration and Development in Gujranwala and Sialkot 1947–1961”, pp. 179-180
[7] Rakesh Ankit, “Pandit Ramchandra Kak: The Forgotten Premier of Kashmir”, Epilogue Magazine, April 2010, pp. 36–39
[8] Rakesh Ankit, “Henry Scott: The forgotten soldier of Kashmir”, Epilogue Magazine, May 2010. pp. 44–49
[9] A. G. Noorani, “Myths & Reality”, Frontline Magazine, January 2010
[10] Rakesh Ankit, “Henry Scott: The forgotten soldier of Kashmir”. Epilogue Magazine, May 2010, pp. 47
[11] Srinath Raghavan, “War and Peace in Modern India”, pp. 105
[12] Prem Shankar Jha, “The Origins of a Dispute: Kashmir 1947, pp. 47
[13] Rajesh Ankit, “Pandit Ramchandra Kak: The Forgotten Premier of Kashmir”, pp. 36–39
[14] ] Prem Shankar Jha, “The Origins of a Dispute: Kashmir 1947, pp. 69
[15] Srinath Raghavan, “War and Peace in Modern India”, pp. 108
[16] Nyla Ali Khan “Islam, Women, and Violence in Kashmir: Between India and Pakistan”
[17] D. N. Panigrahi, “Jammu and Kashmir, the Cold War and the West 2009”, p. 54.
[18] Victoria Schofield, “Kashmir in Conflict”, pp. 61
[19] A.G. Noorani, “The Kashmir Dispute, 1947–2012”, pp. 13-14
[20] Srinath Raghavan, “War and Peace in Modern India”, pp. 111
[21] A. G. Noorani, “Plebiscite in Kashmir: Stillborn or Killed?- Part 1”, Greater Kashmir
[22] Muhammad Ali Siddiqi. “The Kashmir Dispute: 1947–2012 by A.G. Noorani”
[23] M.G. Chitkara, “Kashmir: LoC”, pp. 60–70
[24] Sayyid Mir Qasim, “My Life and Times”, pp. 70–300
About the Author:
Meraj Hasan is a researcher of history with a focus on Partition of India. He tweets at @_merajhasan
Pakistani Bibliophiles 