Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kashmir
by Steven Meurrens
The Maharaja Hari Singh presided over Kashmir during the end of
British imperialism in South Asia. During the British partition of the
Indian Subcontinent in 1947, the princely states were supposed to
accede to either India or newly created Pakistan. Hari Singh wanted
neither, and delayed his decision. Both Jawaharel Nehru, the leader of
India, and Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, urged the
maharaja to join their respective nation. In early September, a Muslim
rebellion seeking unity with Pakistan erupted in the Poonch district.
India accused Pakistan of sending Pashtun fighters into the Poonch to
sabotage the pending decision of Hari Singh. By mid October, the
rebel army was only four kilometres away from capturing Srinagar. It
was at this point of desperation, that Hari Singh reportedly signed the
Treaty of Accession with India. The Indian army would enter the
province the same day, and would be at war with Pakistan within a
month. The validity of this treaty would be the basis of both nations’
claim to Kashmir.
Historians often disagree with one and other about the interpretation
of the dispute in Kashmir. There are three main concepts that are used
by supporters of India to justify India’s occupation of Kashmir. The
first is that because of the Treaty of Accession, India’s actions and
claim to Kashmir are legal. A.G. Noorani, a lawyer in New Delhi,
whose Indian bias has clouded his judgment about the Indian claim,
and author of The Kashmir Question, summarized India’s long-
standing stance regarding the treaty in his book’s introduction:
The appeals India has made to the United Nations all reflect this
attitude. As Nehru argued in a complaint issued to the UN in 1948,
because India has a document that states Kashmir belongs to India, all
Pakistani claims and actions in the region are void and aggressive, as
well as demonstrating a blatant disregard to international law and
procedure.
This is one of the rare instances that an elected block of the people of
Kashmir had been given the chance to speak. Representing the
subjects who elected them, they sought accession with Muslim
Pakistan. Prem Nath Bazaz, founder of the Kashmir Socialist Party in
1943, a reliable primary source of history, reiterated that a majority of
Kashmiris were against the decision of the Maharajah in his book,
The History of The Struggle of Freedom In Kashmir. He writes, “The
large majority of the population of the State, almost the entire Muslim
community and an appreciable number of non Muslims was totally
against the Maharjah declaring accession to India.” This statement,
and the decision reached by the legislative assembly are important
because they dispel any belief that the Kashmiris' religious ties with
Pakistan did not necessarily indicate a will to unite. Indeed, the ethnic
bond between Kashmir and Pakistan influenced a majority of the
people to seek accession with Pakistan. The Hindu Maharajah would
not listen, and continued to delay his decision about which nation to
join. Still, even though Hari Singh’s actions were wrong, they do not
compare to the deplorable pressure and tactics applied by India to
capture Kashmir.
India basing its claim on adhering to diplomatic rule of law and the
decision of a nation’s leader is made even more laughable because of
its actions in Hyderabad and Junadgh. Hyderabad, located in central
India, was the opposite of Kashmir. There, a Muslim ruled over a
Hindu majority, and did not want to join India. The Indians did not
accept the leader’s wishes and invaded Hyderabad in September of
1948. In Junadgh, the situation was similar. Nehru forced the ruler of
Junadgh to hold a plebiscite after the latter claimed that he could not
make the decision because he did not represent his people. That
Nehru agreed to the principles of self-determination and ethnicity
when it served his interests, and not in Kashmir, illustrates the
hypocrisy of the Indian claim to Kashmir. As Mushtaqur Rahman
reiterates in his book, it even renders the Indian claim illogical:
Bibliography