Indian Colonisation in Kashmir

There were some 565 princely states in British India which were ruled by their respective kings apart from main India directly ruled by England and J&K was one of the princely state and not a British colony.

This is first thing to remember.

As per the Partition agreement between India, Pakistan and British, all these 565 princely states were given option/free will to choose what is best for you, India or Pakistan or a sovereignty? Many choose India and many choose Pakistan. A State like Junagarh gave accession to Pakistan as per the agreement on 15 Sept. 1947 which India could not digest and sent troops to the State and got hold of it. A princely state like Hyderabad choose to be Independent, but India broke the agreement and attacked Hyderabad and killed thousands Hyderabadi civilians and annexed it to India. India was the first to break this Agreement in the case of Junagarh.

On August 15, India celebrated independence from the British Raj. But Kashmiris staged a bandh/protest demanding independence from India. A day symbolising the end of colonialism in India became a day symbolising Indian colonialism in the Valley.

As a liberal, I dislike ruling people against their will as we are not under rein of Kingship. True, nation-building is a difficult and complex exercise, and initial resistance can give way to the integration of regional aspirations into a larger national identity.

I was once hopeful of Kashmir's integration with India, but even after six decades of effort, Kashmiri alienation looks greater than ever. Kashmiri's never accepted India, obviously not possible with 8 lac Indian army and 1.5 lac civilian killings registered in Amnesty International, mass pogroms by governor Jagmohan Malhotra, rapes and tortures of civilians in Interrogation centres like papa2, thousands of unmarked graves, draconian law's like PSA, AFSPA to torture people. Indian union should really focus on dialogue in solving the Kashmir dispute rather ruling it. India seeks to integrate with Kashmir, not rule it colonially. Yet, the parallels between British rule in India and Indian rule in Kashmir have become too close for my comfort.

Many Indians say that Kashmir legally became an integral part of India when the maharaja of the state Maharaja Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession to Indian Union. Alas! biggest lie ever told to Indians. Maharaja first made an stand still agreement with both India and Pakistan, but only Pakistan acepted it. Such legalisms become irrelevant when ground realities change. Indian kings and princes, including the Mughals, as well as Hindu kings of south India acceded to the British Raj. The documents they signed became irrelevant when Indians launched an independence movement.

The British insisted for a long time that India was an integral part of their Empire, even the passport shows British India passport, the jewel in its crown, and would never be given up. Imperialist Blimps remained in denial for decades. I fear India is in similar denial on Kashmir.

The politically correct story of the Maharaja's accession ignores a devastating parallel event. Just as Kashmir had a Hindu maharaja ruling over a Muslim majority, Junagadh (present Gujrat connects Pakistan via Karachi) had a Muslim nawab ruling over a Hindu majority. The Hindu Maharaja of Kashmir acceded to India with conditions, and the Muslim nawab of Junagarh acceded to Pakistan. This is second time India broke agreement.

But while India claimed that the Kashmiri accession to India was sacred, it did not accept Junagadh's accession to Pakistan. India sent troops into Junagadh.  Pakistan lacked the military means to intervene in Junagadh through sea route, while India was able to send troops into Junagarh. Kashmir maharaja sat tight with the support of Sheikh Muhammed Abdullah and its political party National Conference. India's double standard on Junagadh and Kashmir was breathtaking. Had India not broken the agreement twice, Pakistan would not have sent troops to kashmir and hold 45% of Kashmir and left 35% for India after cease fire ordered by UN. 

Even in defeat, Maharaja Hari Singh was careful about the extent of surrender. Despite the panic in the air and the urgency of the moment, atleast three terms in the instrument of Accession showed evidence of some forethought. Two of them deal with the measure of sovereignty that would reside in Srinagar. A lot, on the face of it. Clause 7 of Hari Singh's agreement with Sardar Patel said, 
"Nothing in this instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future Constitution of India or to fetter any discretion to enter arrangements with the government of India under any such future Constitution. 
And Clause 8 went, "Nothing in this Instrument affects the continuance of my sovereignty in and over the state, or, save as provided by or under this instrument, the exercise of any powers, authority and rights now enjoyed by me as a ruler of this state or the validity of any law as present  in this state."
Kashmir has now joined the Union of India, but not the Constitution of India on October 27, 1947 which is exactly 5 days after Pakistan send troops to Kashmir. Next day India army were airlifted to Srinagar. Kashmir was still governed by J&K Constitution Act of 1939, with Delhi jurisdiction extending only to External affairs, Defence and Communication. Now Kashmir has been guaranteed a special status conceded by Gopalaswamy Aiyangar,while moving Article 306A in the Constituent assembly. Dr Ambedkar was not ready to Draft it. It was Maulana Hasrat Mohani who interrupted  at this point in the debate with a question, "Why this discrimination, please", Aiyangar went to explain why there was a difference  vis-a-vis Maharaja Hari Singh's Kashmir (Clause 7 was Hari Singh's condition). No other person in the meeting seems opposing it as it was that time viewed as a victory for Indian union and not a problem as now India was able to intervene and sent troops and fight back Pakistan. Article 306A was adopted very day in the Draft Constitution and became Article 370 in the final constitution .

The British came to India uninvited. By contrast, Sheikh Abdullah, the most popular politician in Kashmir of that time and close ally of maharaja supported a conditional accession to India subject to ratification by a Plebiscite. But his heart lay in independence for Kashmir which was not possible at that time because Indian union has already broken the treaty not once, but twice, Hyderabad and Junagarh and how could he expect Pakistan to support his Independence, and he soon began manoeuvering towards that end.  He was jailed by Nehru, who then declared Kashmir's accession was final and no longer required ratification by a plebiscite. The truth is that, had Nehru no accepted conditional accession of Kashmir through Plebscite, Abdullah and Maharaja may have acceeded to Pakistan which was other choice as well as will of majority of people of Kashmir. Sheikh Abdullah himself was not a big fan of Jinnah and at the same time was aware of the growing Sangh Parivar in India. This was the reason he asked for Plebscite and gave accession on those terms. The fact that Kashmir had a Muslim majority was held to be irrelevant, since India was a secular country empowering citizens through democracy.

Subsequent state elections were also rigged in favour of leaders nominated by New Delhi. Only in 1977 was the first fair election held, and was won by the Sheikh. But he died after a few years, and rigging returned in the 1988 election. That sparked the separatist uprising which continues to gather strength today.

Many Indians point to long episodes of peace in the Valley and say the separatists are just a noisy minority. But the Raj also had long quiet periods between Gandhian agitations, which involved just a few lakhs of India's 500 million people. One lakh people joined the Quit India movement of 1942, but 25 lakh others joined the British Indian army to fight for the Empire's glory.

Blimps cited this as evidence that most Indians simply wanted jobs and a decent life. The Raj built the biggest railway and canal networks in the world. It said most Indians were satisfied with economic development, and that independence was demanded by a noisy minority. This is uncomfortably similar to the official Indian response to the Kashmiri demand for azaadi.

Let me not exaggerate. Indian rule in Kashmir is not classical colonialism. India has pumped vast sums into Kashmir, not extracted revenue as the Raj did. It enjoys wide civil rights that the Raj never gave. Some elections — 1977, 1983 and 2002 — were perfectly fair.

India has sought integration with Kashmir, not colonial rule. But Kashmiris nevertheless demand azaadi. And ruling over those who resent it so strongly for so long is quasi-colonialism, regardless of our intentions.

India promised Kashmiris a plebiscite six decades ago. Let us hold one now, and give us three choices: Independence, Union with Pakistan, and Union with India. Almost certainly the Valley will opt for independence. Jammu will opt to stay with India, and probably Ladakh will decide of its own. Let Kashmiris decide the outcome, not the politicians and armies of India and Pakistan.
Alas, democracy in Kashmir has been a farce for most of six decades. The rot began with Sheikh Abdullah in 1951: he rejected the nomination papers of almost all opponents, and so won 73 of the 75 seats unopposed! Nehru was complicit in this sabotage of democracy.

Subsequent state elections were also rigged in favour of leaders nominated by New Delhi. Only in 1977 was the first fair election held, and was won by the Sheikh Abdullah. But he died after a few years, and rigging returned in the 1988 election. That sparked the separatist uprising which continues to gather strength today.

Many Indians point to long episodes of peace in the Valley and say the separatists are just a noisy minority. But the Raj also had long quiet periods between Gandhian agitations, which involved just a few lakhs of India's 500 million people. One lakh people joined the Quit India movement of 1942, but 25 lakh others joined the British Indian army to fight for the Empire's glory. Separatists more or less are the voice's of the people same as every leader to its people.