(Part 3 in an ongoing series dedicated to Ramachandra Guha’s India After Gandhi; see last week’s post here. This week’s post is dedicated to Chapter 4, “A Valley Bloody and Beautiful”; next week we will look at Chapter 5, “Refugees and the Republic,” which looks at the problem of integrating millions of refugees into the new Indian republic.)
Guha’s first chapter (of three) dealing with Kashmir, I must admit, left me with more questions than answers, but it may be that the subject of Kashmir — even restricted to two years at a time — is simply too complex to deal with in a thirty page overview chapter. Guha’s goal is to provide a balanced account of what happened in 1947-8 with the Accession of Kashmir to the Indian union (October 26, 1947), and the war between India and Pakistan that followed (which is actually well-summarized at Wikipedia). Guha goes with the line that the Pathans who marched on Srinagar in the autumn of 1947 were surely armed by Pakistan, and were not exactly a “liberation” army (they were only too happy to loot Kashmiri Muslims as well as Hindus and Sikhs in the towns they entered). He also stresses the close ties between Sheikh Abdullah and Nehru, and derides Hari Singh as just another useless Maharaja. He also acknowledges that the role of the UN in 1948 was not particularly helpful, and that effectively the whole issue was going to be punted (1965), and then punted yet again (1999).
We could go back and forth on Kashmir forever. The two major, historically grounded positions in the debate, I think, are the following:
- (1) The Maharajah of Kashmir, Hari Singh, legally joined the Indian union in 1947, and therefore the territory belongs to the Indian union, irrespective of whether Hari Singh’s action represented the desires of the majority of Kashmiris. A popularly elected Constituent Assembly, led by Sheikh Abdullah, did unanimously ratify the Accession in 1951.
- (1a) At this point, we should just formalize the Line of Control (LOC), and end the whole thing.
- (2) The people of Kashmir have the right to self-determination. When it signed the ceasefire in 1948, India promised to offer Kashmiris a plebiscite, where they could decide whether to join India or Pakistan, or remain independent. This it has never done. Moreover,
- (2a) Sheikh Abdullah always asked for more autonomy for Kashmir, and was eventually imprisoned for it (correction: he was imprisoned when he started to demand independence). Even if a plebiscite is not granted, the demand for autonomy should be taken seriously.
(Is that a fair characterization of the two major positions, and the ancillary points that follow from them?)
My goal here — and I hope you’ll go along with me — is not to reaffirm my own position, but rather to find out something I didn’t know before, and explore new ways of thinking about a very old subject. From Guha’s account, the figure I’ve become most interested in is Sheikh Abdullah, a secular Muslim who saw himself as the natural leader of all Kashmiris. He sided with India in the conflict with Pakistan, but was later imprisoned by the Indian government for continuing to demand autonomy for the region. His complexities are perhaps emblematic of the extraordinarily complex political problem that is Kashmir. To begin with, here is what Guha has to say about Sheikh Abdullah:
Whether or not Abdullah was India’s man, he certainly was not Pakistan’s. In April 1948 he described taht country as ‘an unscrupulous and savage enemy.’ He dismissed Pakistan as a theocratic state and the Muslim League as ‘pro-prince’ rather than ‘pro-people.’ In his view, ‘Indian and not Pakistani leaders. . . had all along stood for the rights of the States’ people.’ When a diplomat in Delhi asked Abdullah what he thought of the option of independence, he answered that it would never work, as Kashmir was too small and too poor. Besides, said Abdullah, ‘Pakistan would swallow us up. They have tried it once. The would do it again.’ (91-92)
And here is what Abdullah did, as Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir (a post he held starting in 1948):
Within Kashmir, Abdullah gave top priority to the redistribution of land. Under the maharaja’s regime, a few Hindus and fewer Muslims had very large holdings, with the bulk of the rural populations serving as labourers or as tenants at will. In his first year in power, Abdullah transferred 40,000 acres of surplus land to the landless. He also outlawed absentee ownership, increased the tenant’s share from 25% to 75% of the crop, and placed a moratorium on debt. His socialistic policies alarmed some elements in the government of India, especially as he did not pay compensation to the dispossessed landlords. But Abdullah saw this as crucial to progress in Kashmir. As he told a press conference in Delhi, if he was not allowed to implement agrarian reforms, he would not continue as prime minister of Jammu and Kahsmir. (92)
I quote that second paragraph because it’s important to remember that Kashmiri politics in 1948 was not merely a Hindu-Muslim problem. And Abdullah’s ideology was not only “Kashmiri autonomy within India.” He was also fiercely invested in democratization (and opposed to any vestiges of monarchy or feudalism) and land redistribution.
But here’s the crucial thing. Though Abdullah accepted what he saw as “Kashmir’s constitutional ties with India,” he never really accepted the idea that Jammu and Kashmir was merely a state like other states, integrated within the Indian union. For him, Kashmir was always a nation, even if it ceded all military and some legal/executive controls to India. You can see this in the speech he gave at the J&K Constituent Assembly meeting in 1951, the text of which is online here:
One great task before this Assembly will be to devise a Constitution for the future governance of the country. Constitution-making is a difficult and detailed matter. I shall only refer to some of the broad aspects of the Constitution, which should be the product of the labors of this Assembly.
Another issue of vital import to the nation involves the future of the Royal Dynasty. Our decision will have to be taken both with urgency and wisdom, for on that decision rests the future form and character of the State.
The Third major issue awaiting your deliberations arises out of the Land Reforms which the Government carried out with vigor and determination. Our “Land to the tiller” policy brought light into the dark homes of the peasantry; but, side by side, it has given rise to the problem of the landowners demand for compensation. The nation being the ultimate custodian of all wealth and resources, the representatives of the nation are truly the best jury for giving a just and final verdict on such claims. So in your hands lies the power of this decision.
Finally, this Assembly will after full consideration of the three alternatives that I shall state later, declare its reasoned conclusion regarding accession. This will help us to canalize our energies resolutely and with greater zeal in directions in which we have already started moving for the social and economic advancement of our country. (link)
(I would recommend reading the whole speech, if you have a chance.) Keep in mind — when Sheikh Abdullah says “nation” or “country,” he is not talking about India, but Kashmir.
And here is what he says about Accession and the 1947-8 war:
Finally we come to the issue which has made Kashmir an object of world interest, and has brought her before the forum of the United Nations. This simple issue has become so involved that people have begun to ask themselves after three and a half years of tense expectancy. “Is there any solution ?” Our answer is in the affirmative. Everything hinges round the genuineness of the will to find a solution. If we face the issue straight, the solution is simple.
The problem may be posed in this way. Firstly, was Pakistan’s action in invading Kashmir in 1947 morally and legally correct, judged by any norm of international behavior ? Sir Owen Dixon’s verdict on this issue is perfectly plain. In unambiguous terms he declared Pakistan an aggressor. Secondly, was the Maharajah’s accession to India legally valid or not ? The legality of the accession has not been seriously questioned by any responsible or independent person or authority.
These two answers are obviously correct. Then where is the justification of treating India and Pakistan at par in matters pertaining to Kashmir ? In fact, the force of logic dictates the conclusion that the aggressor should withdraw his armed forces, and the United Nations should see that Pakistan gets out of the State.
In that event, India herself, anxious to give the people of the State a chance to express their will freely, would willingly cooperate with any sound plan of demilitarization. They would withdraw their forces, only garrisoning enough posts to ensure against any repetition of that earlier treacherous attack from Pakistan.
These two steps would have gone a long way to bring about a new atmosphere in the State. The rehabilitation of displaced people, and the restoration of stable civic conditions would have allowed people to express their will and take the ultimate decision.
We as a Government are keen to let our people decide the future of our land in accordance with their own wishes. If these three preliminary processes were accomplished, we should be happy to have the assistance of international observes to ensure fair play and the requisite conditions for a free choice by the people. (link)
It’s clear that even in 1951, Abdullah’s position is not going to make the Nehru or the Indian government happy. He wants Pakistan out of the picture, but he also never wavers on the demand for a plebiscite — which fits squarely with his obvious ideological passion for pure democracy in Kashmir, does it not?
I think Sheikh Abdullah fatally failed to realize that without political and military sovereignty, the idea of “nationhood” is meaningless. Autonomy within the Indian union is not really a meaningful solution; it could never work as a practical matter as long as Pakistani and Chinese troops are massed on the borders. My hunch is that Abdullah was so invested in maintaining his own centrality to Kashmiri politics that he couldn’t see that the compromised position he was taking was destined to fail.
I do not have very deep knowledge about what happened to Sheikh Abdullah after 1953. As I understand it, he was imprisoned for eleven years, and on his release was briefly reconciled with Nehru (before the latter’s death in 1964). Abdullah was in and out of detention through the 1960s, and finally in 1975 signed the controversial “Kashmir Accord,” a legalistic document which gives somehow everything to the government and pays lip service to Kashmiri autonomy at the same time.
I think the situations are vastly different today than when the Skeikh was in power. With the Hindu radicals (read Sangh Parivar) and the Muslim militants and mullahs, claiming to represent their communities.The debate for democracy seems to be lost in the whole religious chest banging.
I wish someone makes a video demanding India n Pakistan leave Kashmir alone (a la Chris Crocker).
Interesting to compare Sheikh Abullah to NWFPs Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. Both peripheral regions wanted a lot more autonomy than the centralized state was willing to give. For that matter, same is true of Punjab and Bengal. And the Northeast. Comes back to chachji’s question — would south asia better accomodate peripheral regions demands for autnomy in a decentralized feredation?
One can imagine a world where Suhrawardy had gottone together with, Annadurai, Ghaffer Khan and Sheikh Abdullah, not Jinnah, and demands for regional autonomy were never communalzed. Tamlis, Pathan, Bengalis and Kashmiris would all have demanded that Cow-belter Nehru and the hindi-speakers allow decentralization.
I think Kashmir cannot be viewed by itself but should be considered with how other princely states were dealt with. Hyderabad is a mirror image of Kashmir in that it had minority rule over the majority, in this case it was the Muslim Nizam over the hindu majority.
The Nizam initially wanted to stay independent, then he thought about going with Pakistan. What was India’s response? They sent Sardar Patel to take care of it. Operation Polo. I quote Wiki:
“The military operation was carried out because the State of Hyderabad under Osman Ali Khan, Asif Jah VII, decided to remain independent after the partition of India. Wary of a rogue Muslim ruled state right in the middle of India, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru decided to annex the state of Hyderabad. Though backed by Qasim Razvi’s armed militias, known as Razakars, and a distant moral support of Pakistan[1], the Hyderabad State Forces were easily defeated by the Armed Forces of India within five days.”
India made clear the reason for this. Hyderabad was a Hindu majority state ruled by a Muslim majority. It was only natural that it go with India. The Nazim was forced to sign the Instrument of Accession with the military sitting outside his door! It’s under the policy laid out by India that Kashmir becomes easy to solve. A Hindu ruler over a Muslim majority. So just as India invades Hyderabad, Pakistan backs the tribes and invades themselves.
So I think there is an The military operation was carried out because the State of Hyderabad under Osman Ali Khan, Asif Jah VII, decided to remain independent after the partition of India. Wary of a rogue Muslim ruled state right in the middle of India, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru decided to annex the state of Hyderabad. Though backed by Qasim Razvi’s armed militias, known as Razakars, and a distant moral support of Pakistan[1], the Hyderabad State Forces were easily defeated by the Armed Forces of India within five days.opion 4 to add to that list.
So I think there is an option 4 to add to that list. Kashmir goes to Pakistan under the Indian theory that it is the will of the majority population to be considered and not the will of the rulers. Will of course determined by if the majority is Hindu or not, never a plebiscite!
Sorry, I didn’t read last week’s chapter summary, apparently Hyderabad was talked about! You can therefore ignore crude history and just take my point. Kashmir should be looked at in context of Hyderabad.
Punjabi Assassin, I just wanted to mention, in case you missed it, that I did do a bit on the Hyderabad question in last week’s post. There were quite a number of comments!
So I think there is an option 4 to add to that list. Kashmir goes to Pakistan under the Indian theory that it is the will of the majority population to be considered and not the will of the rulers. Will of course determined by if the majority is Hindu or not, never a plebiscite!
I gather it is quite possible that if a plebiscite were to be held in the Kashmir Valley (and only the Kashmir Valley) today, a majority of voters would choose independence, not Pakistan. (See for instance this poll. It’s a very limited poll with a small sample size, but it’s something.)
I think there would not have been any problem if the Brits/Jinnah/Congress agreed that people’s wishes reign supreme even in the case of the princely states..
Jinnah as far as I know never campaigned for the rights of the people of the “princely states” unlike Nehru / Congress. Why should he, because he was all along backed by the wealthy princes of Hyderabad / Bhopal etc ?..
It is ludicrous to assume that the people of the “princely states” (or the Congress) would sit quiet and allow their ruler to dictate what form of government they’ll have when all of British India is going to get a “democracy”. If you think about it, “princely states” were 45% of what is India today.
Jinnah was known enticing even the Rajput princes with “blank cheques”. Finally he lost even kashmir because of his greed.
Amardeep,
I agree with you, I only say that sarcastically since everyone seems to know the will of the people, but no one asks them! Hindu –> India. Muslim –> Pakistan. Independence? No one wants that! Naturally.
I think there would not have been any problem if the Brits/Jinnah/Congress agreed that people’s wishes reign supreme even in the case of the princely states..
Ponniyin, so by that logic do you think a plebiscite should be held today along the lines Sheikh Abdullah demanded?
(Incidentally, Guha agrees with you that Jinnah had a double standard on the Princely States. When Jinnah accepted the Maharaja of Junagadh’s attempt to throw in his lot with Pakistan (with a Hindu majority), it made Sardar Patel decide that by the same logic Kashmir should be able to accede to India.)
Nope,
That was then at 1947/48, and now there is no chance of a plebiscite.
Sheikh Abdullah would have figured going with Pakistan meant he was going toe-to-toe with Jinnah and play second fiddle to Jinnah’s supreme ego. On the other hand, Nehru’s egotism(only slightly lesser) was (mostly) kept under check by Patel, Rajaji and others, in the period immediately after independence. He would have definitely gotten a freer hand with Nehru in power. Plus there was the common socialist credentials between them. Which might also maybe why Sheikh talked about Kashmir as an independent country in early 50s, before he was jailed. To me, the one thread that runs through India Pakistan formation is how well Nehru was served by his contemporaries(within India) and how badly Jinnah was served by his contemporaries(within Pakistan).
2 Ikram
–> Tamils would have ended up with further split in their support almost immediately(to my knowledge, andhra was formed in the 50s) and the whole decentralization utopia would have crashed of its own weight.
All the choots who talk about “being fair”, just think/read about history. Being a Hyderabadi, I thank god for being an Indian, than otherwise.
Kashmir belongs to India.
India should give up Kashmir to Pakistan and Arunachal Pradesh to China. I wonder if each Indian state was given a plebiscite, how many would vote out of the Indian union.
why? giving up territory isnt usually a very sound strategic move.
All the [[]] who talk about “being fair”, just think/read about history. Being a Hyderabadi, I thank god for being an Indian, than otherwise.
Kashmir belongs to India.
Desiguy, don’t just chant slogans and curse words at people. Make arguments… use logic… have a conversation….
As Amardeep pointed out, it was at that time, Junagadh and Kashmir that were seen equivalent. A lot of people think Jinnah wanted a swap, but some people (including one of the earlier Bhutto, and wayward Pathans) mucked it up.
Amardeep, Sheikh Abdullah and Nehru have a very complicated history. At one time, they were closest of the friends, and I think even with all jailing and all, they maintained close contact. Pakistan has never liked Sheikh Sahib, and Liaqat Ali Khan termed him a “quisling“. To this day, Farooq Abdullah is a minister in Union Cabinet, and his daughter is married to Sachin Pilot, son of Rajesh Pilot (who is one of the most trusted right hand man of Gandhi family).
I am on 1952 elections in Guha’s book, a little ahead.
Correction: son of Rajesh Pilot (who was one of the most trusted right hand man of Gandhi family).
Rajesh Pilot is dead.
Sachin Pilot is one of the real upcoming politician.
Correction: Omar Abdullah is the minister in the Union Cabinet, Farooq is in semi-retirement mode
Interesting to compare Sheikh Abullah to NWFPs Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan.
That is very apt.
And both of them did not get along with Muslim League.
It would be also useful to include in this debate/analysis as to what is the current status of Kashmir today – Northwest including POK is occupied by Pakistan, Aksai Chin is occupied by China, Leh is Buddhist majority and the rest of the region of the so called Kashmir of 1947 which is with India is immersed in conflict with the Hindus having been driven out. So what more should Hindu and/or secular India give up just to appease the minorities, power players, religious fanatics ?
It would be also useful to include in this debate/analysis as to what is the current status of Kashmir today – Northwest including POK is occupied by Pakistan, Aksai Chin is occupied by China, Leh is Buddhist majority and the rest of the region of the so called Kashmir of 1947 which is with India is immersed in conflict with the Hindus having been driven out. So what more should Hindu and/or secular India give up just to appease the minorities, power players, religious fanatics ?
Brij, I purposefully didn’t try to do this in the post — too much to take on.
I certainly personally feel India should give up on Aksai Chin, and I think it’s clear that Ladakh and Jammu are always going to be a part of India. The only region that is seriously contested is the Kashmir Valley.
I do have views on the Valley, and people are welcome to discuss it (politely, please), but for this post my goal was to focus on Sheikh Abdullah historically — and maybe how/whether Sheikh Abdullah’s particular legacy might help us think about what might be possible today.
Fred,
I wonder that too. If every ethic/cultural group (looking beyond states) were allowed to vote in India how would it go? It would really depend on how much they feel India represents them, or at the very least, can potentially represent them. Too bad India (or most countries for that matter) can’t abide by UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 on The Principle of Equal Rights and Self Determination of Peoples. Most countries have not evolved to the point where they will allow a plebiscite to take place in their sovereign territory. Canada VERY reluctantly allowed Quebec to try.
If people in India were allowed to think it through, I think we’d have about 4 major divisions. The East would go, Kashmir and possibly Punjab, and all of South India (if they realllly thought about the imperialism of the hindi north) would cede.
I just realized that I misread Brij’s comment (#19). I thought it was a more productive comment than it actually was… oh well.
SM Intern – Hoshiayar ! – can we expunge obvious flame bait like #11 and #12???
It is kind of amusing that they are mirror images of each other – I guess thats pretty typical…
Didn’t Hari Singh’s (a Dogra) ancestors become Maharajas of Kashmir during the reign of Ranjit Singh…i.e. as a vassal state of Ranjit Singh’s empire? The Dogras were Ranjit Singh’s allies and Kashmir was their reward? So their lineage as rulers of Kashmir only goes back to the early to mid 1800s. These Dogras are not ethnic Kashmiris, they are Rajputs with roots in Jammu.
Speaking of which, wouldn’t it be better to split Jammu from Kashmir to begin with? The real “Kashmir” issue basically involves the valley alone (or should). I asked this question once on here before, someone gave an excellent reason why NOT to split the two, but I can’t recall what exactly was said.
Al Beruni,
What’s wrong with #12? They are not mirror images! #11 is swearing at people!
SM Intern – Hoshiayar ! – can we expunge obvious flame bait like #11 and #12???
Al Beruni, I gave #11 a warning (see #14). Next time I will move to delete/ban.
Kush,
Wasn’t there a similar dynamic between Farooq and Rajiv Gandhi, I remember they were very close at some point in time and there was a falling out.
Didn’t Hari Singh’s (a Dogra) ancestors become Maharajas of Kashmir during the reign of Ranjit Singh…i.e. as a vassal state of Ranjit Singh’s empire? The Dogras were Ranjit Singh’s allies and Kashmir was their reward? So their lineage as rulers of Kashmir only goes back to the early to mid 1800s.
The Dogras led by Gulab Singh (great grandfather of Hari Singh) purchased Kashmir from the British for $200,000 under the Treaty of Amritsar. The British had won Kashmir by defeating the Sikhs who had been rulers of Kashmir since 1819 when Ranjit Singh defeated the Afghans. The Afghans had earlier taken over Kashmir from the Mughals.
Interestingly the Sikh rule from 1819 onwards to 1846 actually led to hardening of views in the Kashmiri Muslims as the Sikhs imposed restrictions on Muslims including prohibiting azaan (Muslim call to prayer)
Punjabi Assassin, I agree with you. For example, I am sure Tamil Nadu and possibly Karnataka would choose to secede if there were a plebiscite in these states and so would the Punjabi areas. As each region grows, there will be more calls for decentralisation and the end of “Hindi-belt dominance.”
the ideal situation, in my opinion, would be a highly confederated system (ala the eu), not only in india, but also in large countries such as the u.s., china, brazil etc. but all this must happen simultaneously to be successful. it is very hard for one formerly federal state (such as india, u.s., brazil) to become like the confederate states of america, in a world of states where in most countries, the federal government retains vital military and economic powers. the confederates will always lose (alexander hamilton knew this full well; he knew that the confederate states of america could not survive given the nature of the state system). so do not expect india to become one if china, pakistan, russia, the u.s., braliz et al also do not become confederates.
TN and Karnataka would be at war WITH EACH OTHER if they became independant. Their river water dispute alone would be enough to ensure that.
Didn’t Hari Singh’s (a Dogra) ancestors become Maharajas of Kashmir during the reign of Ranjit Singh…i.e. as a vassal state of Ranjit Singh’s empire? The Dogras were Ranjit Singh’s allies and Kashmir was their reward?
The Dogras actually helped the British defeat the Sikhs. The Sikhs who then ruled Kashmir were defeated by the British and Maharaja Dulip Singh signed the Treaty of Peace 1846 which handed over Kashmir to the British. The British then gave Kashmir to the Dogras who had helped the British fights the Sikhs for $200,0000.
So no Kashmiri has ruled Kashmir in what, 1200 years?
Wasn’t there a similar dynamic between Farooq and Rajiv Gandhi, I remember they were very close at some point in time and there was a falling out.
The Nehru and Abdullah families both being Kashmiris have strong love and hate relationship.
Now being People magazine reporter……..Sara Abdullah (her mother is white, and daughter of Farooq) is a Muslim married a Rajput Hindu, Sachin Pilot.
Omar Abdullah**, son of Farooq is married to a Sikh.
** I have been wrong, he was a minister in BJP/ NDA government.
As chachaji pointed out earlier, Kashmir is not just a piece of land…..it has always been part of Great Game, and Cold War, because it geographical (and altitude) proximity to China, Russia, Afghanistan.
Do you have anything to backup that claim? Seems unlikely in the current scenario.
that’s right. People who wanted secession and treated 15, Aug 1947 as the day of mourning like the DMK folks are firmly in the state and central governments and are well in the “Indian” mainstream. I doubt if the person who commented can figure out the difference between Tamil / Kannada if he/she heard someone speaks the language.
people would want more financial autonomy and many subjects in the state list, but “secession”, I don’t think so.
Is there anything about article 370 of the Indian constitution? Why was it needed for Kashmir and not Hyderabad or Junagadh?
–> End of “hindi-belt dominance” doesnt automatically mean secession by other states. I am not sure how much stomach TN has for secession as it exists today. It might have been all the rage in 50s and 60s but the current crop of leaders might not be that much inclined towards secession. I am sure the power of the threat of secession has figured prominently in their calculations when bargaining with the centre. Whether they would actually secede is doubtful.
As per the agreement plebiscite was to be done in undivided Kashmir, preconditions for plebiscite included withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani forces from Kashmir. Which never happened, with no hope of full plebiscite, India went ahead with Article 370 and special status for J&K.
On the other hand Pakistan put a puppet,phony government in PoK,and Northern Area were merged with Pakistan.
I mentioned this on the Hyderabad thread. There is no comparison between Hyderabad and Kashmir. Nehru’s pontification created this confusion unnecessarily. The rationale I see is that sometimes a country has to do what a country’s gotta do. Hyderabad was smack dab in the middle of the country geographically. The Nizam was no angel. He did not lord over that area forever. Just as he conquered that area, India did the same. Sometimes, it’s best to care of these things in its infancy instead of letting it fester like the Kashmir issue.
Kashmir – there is no wrong or right in my mind. The only wrong was to let it linger for so long. Kashmir was geographically a neighbor to both India and Pakistan at the time. At that point, in case of a tie, and no concrete military solution in sight, you just go by on accord. There is not perfect answer. Look at Lahore. Should it have been part of Indian Punjab? Who knows.
It just does not make sense for either country to be fighting over one state for this long at great expense. India had a chance to consolidate Kashmir. Nehru bungled it. So it should be open to giving Kashmir independence as long as it is in a no military zone. But that’s a big if. They will have to think about iron clad treaties in an area where such treaties have not been honored in the true spirit. Well, looks like I dont have an easy answer! Russia is better off with a downsized country instead of the unwieldly USSR. Bangladesh is better off without Pakistan(though it is a shame they have inexplicably become fundamentalist and become Pakistan’s lackeys after all that was done to them). Kashmir, India, Pakistan may be better off separate. Kashmir will also have to compensate all the Pandits for their land.
IF Kashmiris want to know what real force is, just look at how China has stripped Tibet not only of its independence but its culture too. At least there is still a Kashmiri identity intact.
Kush wrote: And both of them did not get along with Muslim League.
Er — not, that’s missing the point. Abdallah didn’t get along with Congress either. And had Frontier province joined India, Bacha Khan would probably not have won the Bharat Ratna — he would have been imprisoned by Nehru.
All of South Asia’s peripheral regions want more autonomy. Punjab and Bengal got it. Baluchistan, Kashmir and the north east still want it. And given present population trends (stagnant south, growing North), if the Lok Sabha ever has equal representation for every state (with Bihar and UP gaining seats), the South will want it again too.
South Asia’ history, whether the Hindu, Muslim, or British periods, is one of alternating periods of central (Indus-Ganges) control and regional autonomy. Currently, Delhi/Islamabad have have central control, but there’s no reason to expect it to last indefinetly.
That’s debatable…but unlike the case in Tibet, it’s largely of the Kashmiris’ own doing…adopting Urdu as their literary language instead of Kashmiri, and adopting stricter and stricter forms of Islam instead of retaining kashmiriyat. Yes they do have their basic identity (and certainly their ethnicity) intact, but then so do Tibetans.
Kush: Re Pathan invasion
I think we disagree on the nature of the Pathan invasion into Kashmir. The Pathans entered Kashmir because there were widespread reports of Dogras killing Muslims. A lot of Muslims were in fact killed by the Dogras (the numbers are of course disputable). All the Muslims in Dogra police force had left so the police force was essentially Non-Muslim. The Muslims in the Pooch region were ordered by the Dogra government to surrended their arms leaving them completely vulnerable. Of course the Pakistanis were manipulating the Pathans and they themselves became wayward once they entered Kashmir.
True, no empire lasts forever. Speaking of which, what IS the oldest continuing political entity on Earth, anyone know?
Also lets remember the role of the Punjab Boundary Commission. If the commission had not awarded the three Muslim majority tehsils (sub-districts) of Gurdaspur District of Punjab to India, there would no land connection between India and Kashmir and India would lose its claim over Kashmir. Pathankot was then the land connection of India to Kashmir.
but unlike the case in Tibet, it’s largely of the Kashmiris’ own doing…adopting Urdu as their literary language instead of Kashmiri,
Thats not true for Kashmiris living in the valley.
ACD,
Guha’s in his book does go over “Pooch incidents“. However, he doubts how much Pathans were purely agitated by it (sure, it was an emotional hot button), and how much they were engineered by the Pakistani military personnel on leave, and plain clothes. There is also dispute about the extent (nobody disputes the complete absence) of Pooch events, since Hari Singh by that time was in a very tight corner, and “stand still” agreement with Pakistan had become void. He knew his days were numbered by that time.
Moreover, we can agree that the Pathans to begin had heartfelt empathy for reports of fellow muslims being mistreated even though Liaqat Ali Khan had given them the green signal, that all they find (loot) in Kashmir is theirs (Freedom at Midnight goes over it quite a bit). To the utter frustration of even Pakistani military aiding them, they went totally out of control once they entered the Kashmir borders, and mucked Jinnah plan to be in Srinagar on Oct. 26th, 1947.
Yes, there was mass defection in Hari Singh’s military who were Muslims.
Technically, those Tehsils are non-Muslim majority, (because they were mostly Ahmadiyas). Never knew Radcliffe was a follower of Maududi.. 🙂
They SPEAK Kashmiri but they use Urdu for all their writing/reading i.e as their literary language. Their written media is in Urdu. Their schools are Urdu-medium. Kashmiri (much like Punjabi in Pakistan) is not taught in schools, it is just a spoken language. Younger Kashmiris from Srinagar proper (as opposed to smaller towns or the villages) are in many cases not that fluent in Kashmiri.
Amitabh,
The wiki for Kashmiri pegs the number of speakers at 4.6 million and also states that it is a subject in Universities and colleges in the valley and they are trying to introduce it in schools.