Tag Archives: maharaja hari singh

Facts on Article 370 and accession of Kashmir

Article 370 / autonomy was not in exchange of Accession.

In certain situations as a student of history, it is important to understand the sequence of events and decisions. If the sequence is lost, the essence of history is lost.Some people do it unknowingly others do it deliberately to further their agenda.

The history of Jammu Kashmir & Ladakh goes back to more than 5000 years of Sanatan Dharam, Kashmir Shaivism, Bhuddism and Islam. The aboriginal Kashmiri Hindus and Buddhists have been going through simmering #Genocide, induced displacement and migration since the religious fundamentalists have adopted violent ways of killing and converting people from other faiths. The language used in Kashmir till 1300’s was Sanskrit with Devnagri and Shaarda Script. It was changed to Persian because of the invading rulers. After the beginning of Dogra rule the official language was changed to Urdu.

Before Anglo Sikh war Raja Gulab Singh was heading Jammu region for Lahore Government. In this war, the Lahore government was defeated by britishers and was supposed to pay an indemnity of one and half crore to britishers. Since Lahore government was not in a position to pay full amount and britishers were not in a position to go for another war with Dogra ruler, an amount of 750000 Nanakshahis was paid by Raja Gulab Singh, where after britishers ceded the region of Jammu and Kashmir to Gulab Singh. Some people are hell bent to suggest Kashmir was sold to Maharaja where as fact of the matter is – The State of Jammu and Kashmir was ceded to Maharaja Gulab Singh by virtue of Treaty of Lahore in 1846.

Maharaja Hari Singh did not wish to join either pakistan or India, although he ultimately acceded with India; it was to protect his subjects and the state from invasion led by pakistan in violation of the Standstill Agreement signed between state of J&K and pakistan before 15thAugust 1947. As a consequence of his wish he probably wanted to have some kind of autonomy to govern his state Jammu and Kashmir. Article 370 in some ways could have been a consequence of Maharaja’s wishes, but the governance after accession was rapidly moving out of his hands to National Conference. In 1932 Muslim Conference was established which was later renamed as National Conference and was led by Sheikh Abdullah. In 1953 Jawahar Lal Nehru realised his mistake of supporting and promoting Sheikh Abdullah and ultimately he detained Sheikh Abdullah for 11years.

Partition of British India happened on the basis of religion – two nation theory. As an extension of this concept, founders of pakistan desired to have as many pakistans within the geographical boundary of Indian Dominion, which for obvious reasons was not allowed by Sardar Patel / India. Every thing that pakistan has been trying since 15thAugust 1947, has been in pursuance of their desire to illegally annex Kashmir. As a consequence pakistan has always considered India / J&K as its enemy no.1.

Pakistan in violation of standstill agreement with J&K -a land locked state- stopped its trade routes, which were till then historically used for movement of essential commodities like fuel, wheat, cloth ammunition etc. to the state, it also blocked posts and telegraph links to J&K.
Over and above, pakistan attacked and killed thousands of kashmiri hindus, muslims, sikhs and christians to annex J&K .

Article 370 was a mechanism of allowing a separatist state by not allowing many fundamental rights to millions of people – Kashmiri Hindus, Dalits, Refugees from pakistan,Valmikis, Gorkhas, women who married outside the state of J&K and was also damaging India from within.

In a Secular Democratic Republic of India the constitution of India is very liberal towards minorities and hence there was no need to actually have a separate constitution for a state adjoining pakistan. But J&K was allowed to have a separate constitution which did not allow unconditional free flow of laws for the subjects of J&K, even though they were applicable for the remaining states of India. Over and above, the article 35A was inducted via presidential order without approval of Indian Parliament, which allowed government of J&K to define citizens of the state – effectively we had citizens of India who were not citizens of J&K and the constitution of J&K was biased against citizens of India.

In the mean time punjabes from west pakistan which dominated the military establishment of pakistan started discriminatory tactics with the people of east pakistan mostly bengali, who were culturally different. East pakistan revolted against west pakistan which culminated in formation of Bangladesh as a separate country after 1971 IndoPak war even though both parts of pakistan had been established on the policy of same religion.

After defeat in the war of 1971, former military head of pakistan Zia ul haq in 80s devised a strategy known as operation TOPAC.Basic objective of this strategy was to annex Kashmir with pakistan and to destabilise India. Even today this is the foundational strategy used in one or the other form. Due to lack of political will the parties heading J&K and Indian government till now were knowingly or unknowingly allowing pakistan to make deeper inroads in Kashmiri and Indian civil society. The effects of this prolonged self imposed servitude shown by then governments of J&K and India has now necessitated an unprecedented Government lock down in Jammu and Kashmir, even though unofficial continuous lock downs have lasted at least 13 days in past which were called as hartal or Civil Curfew; effectively making the paradise of Kashmir a living hell for common masses living across the province.

The fact that whole J&K including PoJ&K, Ladakh and Gilgit Baltistan acceded with India. The territory which is in control of countries other than India is the disputed territory not the area within the current geographical boundaries of India.

The misconception created by vested interests to suggest a freedom movement by the some people gets defeated by the fact that genocide and massacre of Hindus and Sikhs was being perpetrated in the name of religious fundamentalism as driven by pakistan agenda to annex J&K.

By:Ravin
Reference:My frozen turbulences in Kashmir- Sh.Jagmohan

A History of Kashmir-Sh.PNK Bamzai

Advertisements

Shattering some myths on Kashmir

Arundhati Roy says Kashmir was never a part of India. We look at why she is wrong & why India’s position is not as vulnerable as it is portrayed to be

Myth I

Kashmir has never been an integral part of India: Arundhati Roy
The Story

At the time of Indian independence, none of the princely states — Hyderabad, Gwalior, Mysore, Baroda and Kashmir, to name a few — were part of India. They were called princely states — quasi-sovereign states ruled by the Indian princes under the “suzerainty” of the British. There were as many as 568 states in India when the British decided to leave India.

In 1947, under the Mountbatten Plan, they were given two options — either affiliate with India or with Pakistan. Though most of the princely states thirsted for freedom, that option was closed at the insistence of the Congress party. Though the choice of which entity to join was left to the rulers of the princely states, it was largely understood that the religious denomination of the majority of the citizens and geographical contiguities of the states would be the preponderant determining criteria.

Kashmir fulfilled both these paramount criteria to join Pakistan — geographical contiguity with the newly-formed state and religious domination of the majority of its citizens.

However, there was a problem: The Hindu ruler of Kashmir Maharaja Hari Singh wanted something which was not on the table — azaadi, or freedom from both India and Pakistan. He wanted Kashmir to remain independent. In spite of entreaties from various quarters including from the Governor General of India, Loius Mountbatten, the Maharaja continued to dither and remained non-committal. And the situation reached a stalemate.

Jinnah and Pakistan perceived this intransigence of the Maharaja to be a clever ploy by India and Mountbatten to pluck Kashmir surreptiously from Pakistan’s grasp. So, in an operation that today can be seen as a precursor of the Kargil Operation, Pakistan launched a military invasion of Kashmir on October 22, 1947.

Pashtun tribals and irregulars, morally and logistically supported by the Pakistan army, were sent in to force the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan. The invaders reached the outskirts of Srinagar, the capital. And threatened to besiege the city.

A frightened and panick-stricken Maharaja radioed Delhi for military help. The Indian leadership argued that it would not be legally possible to send in the Indian Army unless Kashmir acceded to India formally. After another bout of resistance, the Maharaja finally yielded and Mountbatten’s aide V P Menon was sent to Srinagar to secure his signature on the Instrument of Accession. Once signed (on 26 October 1947), the Indian Army was airlifted to Srinagar and the Pakistani invaders were beaten back, but not before they controlled about one-third of Kashmir.

The Reality:

As soon as the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, Kashmir’s accession to India was complete in the legal and formal sense — the same Instrument of Accession that was signed by more than 500 other princely states. That is a fact of history, which cannot be disputed without stretching the truth. It’s there is black and white. In fact, it can be argued that it was Pakistan’s folly of invading Kashmir, overplaying its hand, which sowed the seeds of the Kashmir imbroglio.

File photo of Jawaharlal Nehru with Sheikh Abdullah. When the irregulars from Pakistan invaded India on October 22, 1947, Prime Minister Nehru went to the UN in good faith to call on the world body to intervene and ensure that Pakistan pull back its troops. Based on the Indian complaint and the counter-arguments of Pakistan, the UN Security Council called for not only an immediate ceasefire, but also a plebiscite to determine the wishes of the Kashmiris.

Myth II

India refuses to uphold the UN-mandated plebiscite that gives the right of self-determination to the Kashmiri people: Pakistan

The Story

When the irregulars from Pakistan invaded India on October 22, 1947, Prime Minister Nehru went to the UN in good faith to call on the world body to intervene and ensure that Pakistan pull back its troops. Based on the Indian complaint and the counter-arguments of Pakistan, the UN Security Council called for not only an immediate ceasefire, but also a plebiscite to determine the wishes of the Kashmiris.

Ignoring the advice of his Home Minister Sardar Patel and Indian Army commanders that India should not agree to a ceasefire before the area captured by the invaders was reclaimed, Nehru went ahead and not only ordered an immediate ceasefire but also agreed in principle to the plebiscite — a promise that has not been kept.

The Reality

This is the instance used to castigate India for not only breaking the spirit of the UN resolution but also ignoring the legitimate aspirations of the Kashmiri people.

But just look at what UN Resolution 38 of 17 January 1948 actually says about the run-up to the plebiscite —

“The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours: To secure the withdrawal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purposes of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State”.

Please read that again.

The much-bandied resolution, used to whip India with by the critics, clearly states that Pakistan will “withdraw” all “Pakistani nationals” and “tribesmen” who infiltrated on October 22, 1947 from the soil of the whole of Jammu and Kashmir as it existed then, without exception. This was the UN resolution’s ‘first condition’ for the beginning of the process towards the plebiscite.

Has that condition been fulfilled by Pakistan? Has the land ‘occupied’ by the Pakistanis and the tribesmen in 1947 been vacated? Isn’t the reality that Pakistan occupied and continues to occupy more than one-third of the territory of Kashmir?

As a way to fulfill the mandate and hold the plebiscite, will Pakistan be willing to vacate *** now, 63 years after the resolution? The answer is written on the wall.

For all intents and purposes the UN resolution on Kashmir is as good as dead.

No wonder then that the wily but pragmatic General Musharraf gave up the usual Pakistani harping on self-determination in Kashmir for a more practical and doable out-of-the-box solution, which unfortunately is being disowned by the present Pakistani government.

File photo of Pandit Nehru during his Kashmir visit in 1947. Ignoring the advise of his Home Minister, Sardar Patel, and Indian Army commanders that India should not agree to a ceasefire before the area captured by the invaders was reclaimed, Nehru went ahead and not only ordered an immediate ceasefire but also agreed in principle to the plebiscite, a promise that has not been kept.

Myth III

Pakistan has always stood by Kashmir, as against the brutality of the Indian security forces in the Indian side of Kashmir: Pakistan

Pakistan in Kashmir

a) Pakistan has carved out the Northern Areas (now called Gilgit-Baltistan, almost 72,971 Sq km) from Kashmir into a separate administrative and political unit. This area, which was part of the undivided Kashmir at the time of independence, has been ‘annexed’ by Pakistan, as it were, and separated from Kashmir.

b) In 1963, Pakistan illegally ceded 5,800 sq km in the Trans-Karakoram Tract to China. The Tract was part of the original state of Jammu and Kashmir.

c) Pakistan actively encourages “other people” to settle in *** and have even allowed the Chinese a huge presence in Gilgit-Baltistan, ostensibly for developing the infrastructure of the region.

In contrast:

a) Territorially, the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir is the same entity that existed in 1947, except for the portions gobbled-up by Pakistan/China.

b) The Freedom House Report, 2010, on the level of ‘freedom’ in *** characterised it as “not free’, while the Indian side of Kashmir was defined as “partly free”.

c) No non-Kashmiri can buy as much as an inch of land in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. There has been no attempt by India to change the demographics or the state’s ethnic character. The only demographic change that has happened in the state has been the “ethnic cleansing” of the Kashmiri pundits from the Valley. A mass exodus which has largely been ignored by the media and the powers-that-be.

Therefore, there is nothing much really that India has to feel defensive about. Whatever Arundhati Roy or others may put out on the air.

Source: India Syndicate
Shattering some myths on Kashmir –
http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4504093&page=2