(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.
ACD,
Nobody ever disputes that Hari Singh was extremely debauched, selfish, and weak.
Guha briefly goes over it too but Larry Collins and Dominque Laiperre go into many details.
I wonder what the number of people literate in Kashmiri is?
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).
Freedom at Midnight is my dad’s favorite book. I read the book a while back but did not particularly care for the book’s caricatured treatment of Jinnah. Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre apparently intially went to Pakistan to research the book but did not like the reception they received there so the book was almost entirely researched in India. But its a good book nevertheless as far as I can remember.
brown (#50), I wish you had quoted this in its entirety from the wiki for Kashmiri:
“Literacy in Kashmiri is continuously neglected due to various political reasons and lack of formal education in it. It is now mostly relevant in its spoken form, and the speakers of this language are also decreasing in number. Note that the primary official language of the state of Jammu and Kashmir is not Kashmiri, but Urdu. Some Kashmiri speakers use English or Hindi as a second language.[1] In the past few decades, Kashmiri was introduced as a subject at the university and the colleges of the valley. At present, attempts are on for inclusion of Kashmiri in school curriculum.”
I gathered we already established from your post, I was only presenting other facts that were not there, not deliberate
ACD,
Last week I finished reading Freedom at Midnight (2nd time, the 1st time was decades ago), and am reading Guha. They both are different books in many ways, first Guha’s is more post-1947.
Sure, Freedom at Midnight glorifies (to almost unrealistic levels) Mountbatten, and is extremely pro-India, so there are some short comings. Yes, it is very anti-Jinnah.
Nevertheless, both are well written book, and cover a very complex subject.
This is something I have wondered about and have not found too many resources on a quick search in the past. What was the reason for the Kashmiri demand for independence? And what is it now? I can see the religious angle in terms of joining joining Pakistan (despite it being a dictatorship and all that) but what ‘was’ their reason for wanting independence.
Nice to have, but not an option – it takes two to tango. LOC formalization is something India has been pushing for and Pakistan is opposed to.
How is this is relevant today? The demographics of Jammu and Kashmir have changed too much – especially due to the influx of people from other areas into POK and the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in POK and the J&K state.
If you still feel that demographic change and the elapsed time is irrelevant, then logically, it should not make a difference to you if a plebiscite is held two generations after the government India establishes a 40 acres and a mule policy for Hindu immigrants to Kashmir.
Granting autonomy is what got us into this precarious position in the first place. India has had tons of secessionist movements, driven by reasons that deserve more sympathy than Jammu Kashmir’s cause. I fail to understand why Kashmir alone should get more autonomy
This is false. He was not imprisoned for demanding autonomy. He was imprisoned for advocating secession.
‘our state is neither under the legal domination of the Indian Parliament nor that of any Parliament from outside the state. India or Pakistan, any country cannot be a spike in our wheel of progress’ — Sheikh Abdullah 1952
This is false. He was not imprisoned for demanding autonomy. He was imprisoned for advocating secession.
I stand corrected (and I’ll make a correction in the post). It’s funny, I got that from Wikipedia, but it’s wrong.
Guha’s own later chapter on Kashmir (chapter 12) talks about the complicated set of events that led Abdullah to take a more aggressive stance on independence.
Where is “Kumar” – The Kasmiri ??
The Kashmir problem will not be solved from India’s standpoint unless there is a hindu majority in the State. I was born in Srinagar and I am not allowed to buy land there. Ironically the Indian government wants the same laws in Assam as it keeps the Bangladeshis and Bengalis out. Tangled mess my beloved india.
The GOI doesn’t allow Hindus to buy land in Assam?
I think there are similarities. I am intrigued with Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan (also known as the “sarhad Gandhi”). I have read accounts of how he was heartbroken when it was decided that NWFP will go to Pakistan and neither Nehru-Patel or Mountbetten will do anything about it. He spent most of his life in jail (which is similar to Sheikh Abdullah) in Pakistan after independance. How ironic that the fighter for independance goes to jail after getting independance.
One difference between Sheikh Abdulland and Gaffar Khan may be that Gaffar Khan had also hinted willingness to being part of Afghanistan to make what might have become “Pakhtunistan” (I cant find the source where I read this, so correct me if I am wrong).
But overall Khan Abdul Gaffar khan was a fascinating charactor, just like Sheikh Abdullah. Someone should make a movie on the “sarhad Gandhi”.
As Amardeep hints, I also think that Sheikh Abdullah’s demands for autonomy may be due to local politics or just for him to appear consistent.
If one read the actual actual resolution’s of the ceasefire, one of the pre-requisite condition for plebiscite was unconditional withdrawal of tribesman a.k.a. pakistanis out of occupied areas and this didn’t apply to India.
“Muslim demographic games” of Pakistan under the shadow of the terrorism, doesn’t call for a Plebiscite.. and should be rubbished with contempt. And for that matter, pakistan donated a part of J&K to China.. to boot.
Resolution on Kashmir
European Parliament resolution of 24 May 2007 on Kashmir: Present Situation and Future Prospects (2005/2242(INI))
A. whereas the disputed territory which constituted the former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir is currently administered in separate parts by the Republic of India, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Peoples Republic of China, and has a total population of 13.4 million,
More about the so called Pakistan Occupied “Azaad” Kashmir [ie. “Free Kashmir”]
19. Very much regrets the continuing ambivalence of the current Government of Pakistan with regard to the ethnic identity of Gilgit and Baltistan, whereby statements made by the President are contradicted by official government communications; strongly recommends that the Government of Pakistan endorse and implement the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan of 28 May 1999 which validates the Kashmiri heritage of the people of Gilgit and Baltistan and states that the Government should implement their fundamental human rights, democratic freedoms and access to justice;
The following documents should be part of the The Great Pakistani “Comedy/Swindle” Collection [regarding Gilgit and Baltistan]
Pak Ambassador to Belgium letter to Emma Nicholson http://www.hindu.com/nic/ambassadorletter.pdf
MEP Nicholson’s response: http://www.hindu.com/nic/baronessresponse.pdf
Before people start discussing Hyderabad, and Junagadh which came later…
Balochistan :
Since independence, Islamabad has come into open conflict with the Baluch on four occasions 1948, 1958, 1962, and, most bloodily, from 1973 to 1977, when a growing guerrilla movement led to an armed insurrection that ravaged the province. Within 24 hours of the creation of Pakistan in 1947, the Khan of Kalat (the largest “princely state” in Baluchistan) declared independence. On April 1, 1948, the Pakistani army invaded and the Khan capitulated. His brother, Karim, continued to resist with around 700 guerrillas but was soon crushed.
Islamabad merged the four provinces of West Pakistan into “One Unit” in 1954. This was a bid to counter the strength of East Pakistan (which later became Bangladesh) and the possibility of the minority provinces (Baluchistan, North-West Frontier Province, Sindh) uniting with the east against the Punjab. A large anti-One Unit movement emerged in Baluchistan.
To crush this movement the Pakistan army again invaded. The Khan of Kalat was arrested and large-scale arrests were carried out. Nauroz Khan led a resistance of 1,000 militia that fought the army in pitched battles for over a year. In May 1959, Nauroz Khan was arrested at a parley with the army and died in prison in 1964, becoming a symbol of Baluch resistance. Five of his relatives, including his son, were hanged.
Operation Gibraltar :
Operation Gibraltar was the name given to the failed plan by Pakistan to infiltrate the disputed Jammu and Kashmir region in north-western India and start a rebellion against Indian control. Launched in August 1965, Pakistan Army soldiers and guerrillas, disguised as locals, entered Jammu and Kashmir from Pakistan with the intention of fomenting an insurgency among Kashmiri Muslims. However, the strategy went awry from the outset as the locals did not respond as expected and the infiltrators were soon found. The debacle was followed by an Indian counterattack that resulted in minor victories.
The operation was a significant one as it sparked a large scale military engagement between the two neighbours, the first since the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. Its success, as envisaged by its Pakistani planners, could have given Pakistan control over a unified Kashmir; something that Pakistan desired to achieve at the earliest opportunity. However, the plan misfired and triggered a war (the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965) where Pakistan was put on the defensive.
Pakistan’s Territorial Dispute with Afghanistan : [A.K.A. Land Grab] Durand Line:
Afghanistan’s loya jirga of 1949 declared the Durand Line invalid as they saw it as ex parte on their side (since British India ceased to exist in 1947 with the independence of Pakistan). This had no tangible effect as there has never been a move to enforce such a declaration due to long periods of constant wars with other neighbors in the region. And most importantly, there was no time limit mentioned in the Durand Treaty. Additionally, world courts have universally upheld uti possidetis juris, i.e, binding bilateral agreements with or between colonial powers are “passed down” to successor independent states, as with most of Africa. A unilateral declaration by one party has no effect; boundary changes must be made bilaterally. Thus, the Durand Line boundary remains in effect today as the international boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and is recognized as such by most nations.
Despite pervasive internet rumors to the contrary, US Department of State and the British Foreign Commonwealth Office documents and spokespersons have confirmed that the Durand Line, like virtually all international boundaries, has no expiration date, nor is there any mention of such in any Durand Line documents.[1] The 1921 treaty expiration refers only to the 1921 agreements.
Because the Durand Line artificially divides the Pashtun people, it continues to be a source of tension between the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Frequent press statements from 2005 to 2007 by Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf calling for the building of a fence delineating the Afghanistan/Pakistan border have been met with resistance from numerous political parties within both countries. Leaders of Pashtuns on both sides of the border do not recognize the Durand Line
Non Assamese cannot buy land in Assam, just as non kashmiris can’t buy land in Kashmir. It has nothing to do with religion. I believe there is some process that you have to show that your ancestors came from that region.
Even if India wants to be considerate towards Kashmiri people either give them autonomy or in the extreme case give it independence with security of borders by India. Never agree to let it join Pakistan. Why should the Hindus and/or secular India act like the proverbial good-soft guy ? Show the that India can’t be pushovers. After suffering from losing Aksai Chin, POK, four unnecessary wars, terrorism as the legacy ( this is enough compensation for Mughal occupiers to leave the country ) why should a foreign policy decision today by India be considerate towards Pakistan ? After 50 yrs today the people of India have built a strong nation with a reasonable degree of freedo and autonomy to everybody and Pakistanis or muslim minorities in India have to live by the notion of Indian nation-state and not dicate terms what to do. India is bigger than any narrow religious/regional aspiration of any community or state.
“Why should the Hindus and/or secular India act like the proverbial good-soft guy ?”
Yeah, India really was a good-soft guy when it armed, trained and financed the Tamil Tigers, and now whines about terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. But I suppose what goes around comes around.
Again..pointing out one wrong to justify another. However, in this case the ‘wrong’ is a false one. Rajiv Gandhi sent army to fight the Tamil tigers in Sri Lanka and paid for it with his life.
blockquote>Yeah, India really was a good-soft guy when it armed, trained and financed the Tamil Tigers, and now whines about terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. But I suppose what goes around comes around.
We should learn from Israel as to how to deal with the Pakistani guys. A tit-for-tat and whining by politically correct diplomats and intellectual intelligenisa is a better response to Pakistan sponspored terrorism. The reason I am making such a strong statement is I am currently reading the excellent book “The Terror Timeline” related to events around the world leading upto 9/11 and chapter 12 on Pakistan and ISI is amazing as to how soft everybody have been on Pakistan and molly-coddling this country inspite of such complicity in terrorist activities in its neighbourhood, US and including Britain
Yeah, India really was a good-soft guy when it armed, trained and financed the Tamil Tigers, and now whines about terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. But I suppose what goes around comes around.
There is quite a bit of proof that various Tamil regional political parties have supported and helped Tamil Tigers but some have hated them too. That is also very complicated, and has tortured history.
There is some proof that Indira Gandhi was at some point sympathetic (or looked the other way or low level support) to some of the Tamil parties helping Tamil Tigers. All this was part AIDMK-DMK-Congress-Add another party musical chairs for electoral politics within Tamil Nadu. However, later Government of India sent army to Sri Lanka and fought against Tamil Tigers head on, and eventually Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a Tamil Tiger suicide bomber.
So wrong analogy with Kashmir. This will be similar if Pakistan’s President gets wacked by a Kashmiri Jihadi group.
Shafraz :
“Yeah, India really was a good-soft guy when it armed, trained and financed the Tamil Tigers, and now whines about terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. But I suppose what goes around comes around.”
Sri Lanka provided refuelling to pakistani planes during the war and FYI. India lost soldiers during the IPKF operations against the LTTE, after the Lankans turned their backs.. But it’s all good !!.
Then comes the question of “Whining” :
Timing is very important, if you know.. I assure you , now the global “Jhapad” is on its way [With America missing, now only the Chinese are left ] wrt. Pakistan… And before you say “we have nukes 🙂” .. type “PAL Locks for Pakistani Nukes” in Google, and it will dawn on you why your “army general’s + politicians” need to be pre-approved by the great Satan 😉
Sit tight.. and let me say Insha Allah !!.
New US Armed Forces Journal map proposes Pak sans Balochistan, NWFP By ANI Sunday August 27, 03:13 PM
It’s Pakistan, Stupid!
By Paul Sperry
Finally for your “Green Passport’s” pleasure : http://www.sperryfiles.com/images/2-1.jpg
From wiki on LTTE:
The first country to ban the LTTE was its early ally, India. The Indian change of policy came gradually, starting with the IPKF-LTTE conflict, and culminating with the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. Sri Lanka itself lifted the ban on the LTTE before signing the ceasefire agreement in 2002. This was a prerequisite set by the LTTE for signing of the agreement. However the agreement was not withheld by the LTTE, they continued terrorist like activities against the Sri Lankan Government.[118]
“amazing as to how soft everybody have been on Pakistan and molly-coddling this country inspite of such complicity in terrorist activities in its neighbourhood,”
Just have to replace Pakistan with India there don’t you think? At least with Pakistan all you’ve got is allegations, while India’s arming, training and financing of the LTTE is well known to everyone. Is that complicit enough for you? And has anyone been brought to justice over it? I don’t think so. The truth of the matter is that India is the grandmother of sponsoring terrorism in South Asia.
CNN-IBN special investigation team reports that all the rumours about India training LTTE cadres in warfare were actually true.
On May 21, 1991 Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a suicide bomber from the LTTE’s Black Tiger suicide unit and their chief Velupillai Prabhakaran is still wanted in India for the assassination.
But the fact is that the Tamil Tigers, including Prabhakaran were trained by the Indian Army.
A rare photograph, available with CNN-IBN shows LTTE guerillas training at Kalathur in Tamil Nadu in 1984-85.
Senior LTTE leaders told CNN-IBN that they were recruited by India’s external intelligence wing – RAW and trained by the Indian Army.
…
In October 1983, Prabhakaran arrived in India and stayed at a secret location in Pondicherry.
RAW offered to train 200 LTTE cadres in Dehradun.
Tamizh Kavi, a well known voice on LTTE’s radio station is also candid about the Indian connection.
“Indian army gave us training when Indira Gandhi was the prime minister. She and MG Ramachandran extended full support to us and helped our organisation’s growth,” a broadcaster at the Voice of Tigers radio station Tamizh Kavi says.
FULL STORY: http://in.news.yahoo.com/060702/211/65k9e.html
I wonder exactly how much Indian money went into funding the LTTE. Wonder how many Sri Lankans died due to Indian-sponsored terrorism in that island country.
So let me say Brij, it’s amazing as to how soft everybody have been on India and molly-coddling this country inspite of such complicity in terrorist activities in its neighbourhood.
Ever heard of that sying – people living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones?
63 RC
Similarities between Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and Sheikh Abdullah are superficial.The main accusations against Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and his son was that they were too idealistic and this prevented them from making deals that would have benefitted themselves and their community.
Sheikh Abdullah on the other hand, started off his career influenced by Gandhi but and the end of the day was a hard-nosed wheeling dealing politician who indulged in as much doubletalk and communalism as any of today’s politicians.
For all his speaches on a single jammu and kashmir, at the end of the day he recognised that his strenght lied in a muslim base. He promoted this base at the expense of the hindu and bhuddist citizens of J&K by means similar to what Karl Rove would use years later over here. This includes redistricting of districts to ensure muslim majorities, splitting Leh into bhuddist Leh and Shia Kargil and cutting off funds to Bhuddist Ladakh and Hindu Jammu Given that non-muslims, who formed over a quarter of the J&K population at independance, have no love lost for Sheikh Abdullah, it would be a stretch to call him representative of all of J&K.
This website has a pretty comprehensive history of J&K from various viewpoints
Shad0WFaX, thank you for the links, let me share some with you too:
“First, India had trained the LTTE in 1980s and created the Frankenstein monster. Hence, India has to atone for it by actions to disband and unravel the LTTE.”
The moment of truth for India on LTTE
“In 1984, India Today (issue dated March 31) ran an expose detailing how the Tigers were being secretly trained in Indian camps, with the implicit approval of prime minister Indira Gandhi. Her reaction to the story was vitriolic.”
India Today
“Tucked away in one line in The Hindu today (August 06, 2007) is one of the untold secrets of Indian intervention in Sri Lankan affairs: Velupillai Prabhakaran, the leader of the Tamil Tiger terrorists, was helicoptered out of Sri Lanka by the Indians when he was cornered by the Sri Lankan Army at Vadamarachchi in the 80s.
The Indian helicopters took off from the Hindon military base in Delhi and flew via Thanjavur to rescue Prabhakaran.
The Vadamarachci operation was closing in on Prabhakaran when the Indians launched the rescue operation.”
Indians rescued Prabhakaran
Don’t let this stop you from pointing fingers at other countries though.
ACD,
If you get a chance, please read Guha’s book that Amardeep is blogging about.
On page 80, he says regarding Poonch
“But although there were clashes here and there, there was no major eruption, no head-on battle. Poonch bordered West Punjab; Pakistani cities like Rawalpindi were easily reached from there. However, the North-West Frontier Province is some distance to the west. Did the raiders from that province hear of the insurrection brewing in Poonch? Or were they planning to come anyway?“
Shafrz ji, so getting someone for a meeting is a rescue.
Kush Tandon ji,
Yes. Poking one’s nose in the affairs of others can backfire bigtime. I’m sure India wouldn’t like it if Pakistan or Bangladesh wined and dined terrorists.
“As India did previously in operation Bangladesh by arming the Mukthi Bahini, India funded, trained and gave all kinds of succour to the fledgling Tiger. Early mid-wifery, birth, nursing and formative growth of the Tiger was all courtesy mother India. But the adolescent Tiger kicked the parents in the shin, bloodied the nose of the Indian army, and eventually carried out a patricidal attack of sorts in assassinating the one time Prime Minister of the country.”
The Indian interlude
Let’s not pretend India is some innocent victim.
That’s right. India is not an innocent victim. No one is innocent either.
I think it is high time that Indians stop being apologetic about “Kashmir”. It was a different period in 1946/47/48 when the leaders were busy gobbling up land for their own side “Nehru/Gandhi/Patel” working for Congress/India and Jinnah working for Muslim league/Pakistan and Jinnah lost out in the partition of Punjab/Bengal and then Hyderabad/Kashmir.
The losing side should accept the result and move on. Otherwise if it gains strength it can take over militarily by defeating the ex-winning side. No use in blah-blah and further blah-blah for 60 years.
I think it is high time that Indians stop being apologetic about “Kashmir”. It was a different period in 1946/47/48 when the leaders were busy gobbling up land for their own side “Nehru/Gandhi/Patel” working for Congress/India and Jinnah working for Muslim league/Pakistan and Jinnah lost out in the partition of Punjab/Bengal and then Hyderabad/Kashmir. The losing side should accept the result and move on.
Thats not actually bad advice. The key of course is whether there is still internal oppression by the Indian Government in Kashmir. There was none before the terrorism started in the 80s and hopefully there will be none when the terrorism finally ends which does seem to be coming down.
The Kashmiris in the valley are tired of this fight. For the most part, they dont want to fight anymore. The educated ones are sending their sons to Australia/Canada/US/England and trying to marry off their daughters to non-Kashmiri Muslims living in Delhi/UP and other parts of India so they can move out of Kashmir. The poor ones cant move because they are poor.
Lucky non-Kashmiri Muslims. Kashmiris can be so good-looking.
The Kashmiris in the valley STARTED this fight. I would have had no problem with their struggle if it was framed in terms of Kashmiriyat, or simply for the political autonomy of the Kashmiri people (Muslim or Hindu). In fact I would have supported that. But since it was framed in religious terms (the demand to secede from India simply because it was overwhelmingly Muslim), and was framed as a RELIGIOUS struggle, I have no sympathy for it. As it turns out, the Kashmiri people were mislead by Pakistan as well as global Islamic forces of the Al-Qaida variety, which adopted it as another frontline in its battle with non-Muslims. The actual Kashmiri people were quickly sidelined as outsiders (Arabs, Pakistanis, Afghans, even CHECHENS) took over the battle for their own ends. The last thing they cared for was the Kashmiri people or their culture…it was the principle of ‘Islamic land’ needing liberation. THAT’S bullshit.
Which is not to say the Congress Party or the Indian government or the Indian army/police forces are not to blame for horrible atrocities or actions. Even the Kashmiri Pandits are not totally clean in terms of how they treated Kashmiri Muslims back in the day. So it’s very complicated, as this thread is making clear.
OT Amitabh…besides being a shade lighter, Kashmiri’s are not any better looking that the Indians from the plain. Majority of them have the hooked parrot like nose (a la Indira Gandhi) which is a turnoff for many. Now if being lightskinned is a necessary criterea than europeans anglosaxon can be “so so very good looking.”
Attrocities are bound to happen if the ‘terrorist’ melt away in the local population. There was a book by a Brazilian Leftist on how to sustain a ‘revolutionary’ movement (the name of which escapes me). Pakistan jihadist seem to be using that as their Bible (copies of that were found with some of the Jihadist leaders). In essence it creates situation for attrocities by the police (faked or real) and use that as an impetus to recruit and keep the movement going.
right, there was no trouble in Kashmir before mid 80s. I think the successful “jihad” against the Russians triggered the Pakistanis and some Kashmiris to replicate the same in India starting in the late 80s. They din’t realise India is not Russia and Kashmir is not Afghanistan. I’ve read an article somewhere from a “leftist” (don’t remember where and who wrote it) who has rightly said, “America fights a problem by throwing more money because it has more money, India fights a problem by throwing more people because it has more people” which is very true..
Terrorism hurt Kashmiris more than anything else. Now, It’s like the Indian military soldiers getting a target practice in Kashmir. They get “live training” to either kill or be killed, which is not a happy situation especially for the Kashmiris.
77 Shafraz
–> Understatement of the (still nascent) new century ?
78 Ponniyin Selvan
–> Ponniyin Selvan, starring as desi Eli Pariser, finds ABSAFMoveOn.org that takes out a full page ad in outlook, ‘General Betray Us’ after skirmishes on the border with Pakistan ????? George Fernandes accuses ABSAFMoveOn.org of weakening India against china ??? 🙂
Nice sound bite, but dead wrong in Kashmir’s case.
India has been throwing money hand over fist at Kashmir. Here is a survey of the Indian states through the nineties here
Amazingly Kashmir through the height of terrorism, during this period actually had better infrastructure than Karnataka and AP! It’s probably time for the southern states to start a secessionist movement.
(What is troubling is that the survey has the NE States at the bottom in most indicators … this is probably going to lead to very severe problems in the future).
No, the statement is not wrong.. You could add India is throwing both money and people into the conflict. But the basic premise remains..
It is said that India has more Muslims than any other country except Indonesia. Suppose that the Kashmiri Muslims are subtracted. Would that still hold true?
“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.”
The right to self determination, according to the resolution you refer to, also stipulates that, plebiscite would come only after Indian and Pakistani Armies withdrew to the pre-1947 boundaries of Kashmir. While the Indian army entered Kashmir at the invitation of the then ruling regime, Pakistani army invaded Kashmir illegally.
If this point has already been highlighted, please excuse me.
P.G.Wodehouse – No, even if the Kashmiri [Muslim] population, which is less than 7 million [compared to 150 million or so outside Kashmir], were to be subtracted, India’s Muslim pop would be second or third in the world.
Lucky non-Kashmiri Muslims. Kashmiris can be so good-looking.
Actually 3 members of my extended family in India have got married to Kashmiris in the last couple of years. From what I understand, the educated Kashmiris are rather desperate to find grooms outside Kashmir as the situation is so bad in Kashmir. Delhi now has a sizeable Kashmiri Muslim population.
…..AND, PULI GETS THE REBOUND!
BtB@91:
Thanks for the info.
Amardeep –
Sheikh Abdullah’s demands for a plebiscite/autonomy were never looked upon as a negative by Nehru, or even Sardar Patel. In fact the Sardar, the chief architect of the Indian REPUBLIC, was completely open to the idea of a plebiscite and was never very interested in keeping J & K (the whole state) in the Indian republic after Independence anyways, since he, and the other leaders, were so pre-occupied in trying to keep the rest of the “newâ€country together (VP Menon mentions it in his book, and so does Mountbatten, in his private papers). It only became an issue when Pakistan tried to take it by force (the tribal-cum-Pakistani irregulars and regulars invasion) because Jinnah was scared of a plebiscite (the Valley Muslims were quite different in nationalistic leanings and temperament than the Punjabi Muslims) and wanted to force the British and international hand by brute force.
Abdullah’s history with Nehru, and even the idea of India, would have been quite different if it wasn’t for this invasion of Kashmir. When a state, or a people, become so embroiled in ideas of nationhood and national pride and glory then it is inevitable that political and economic opportunism will result.
The Kashmiri aquiline feature look better with age… especially as the flesh padding increases around the face!!! Are carpets really still made in Kashmir? I’m finding stores all over South India claiming so… any advice in buying carpets in Bangalore?
Many of the Kashmiris I meet express bitterness the Indian government hasn’t invested heavily in Kashmir to improve peoples lives. Kashmir has become the West Bank/Gaza of India… as someone mentioned earlier the mistake is/was in letting it linger. Compensate the people justly for their land and troubles, and let the assimilation begin. The US excels at this.
Kashmir’s history is a mire. Every jackass in India has written about it and they all rely on handwaving and wishful thinking. The only clear and factual account I’ve read of the origins is by A.G. Noorani (the Frontline columnist) published in 1964, called ‘The Kashmir Question’. Useful if you want to know things like why there is Article 370 in the Indian constitution, and what it means. You can also read the Consituent Assembly debates at http://164.100.24.208/ls/condeb/debates.htm or http://google.com/coop/cse?cx=007669040823326618223%3Ayindhdxa-tu
🙂
I should admit that I haven’t read any of the works of Noorani. I have seen the “Jinnah is a secularist” crowd often quote works of Ayesha jalal, Stanley Wolpert and A.G.Noorani. And then he writes for “Frontline”.. I should presume that his account should be “clear and factual” for people who subscribe to that view.
Kashmir has become the West Bank/Gaza of India… as someone mentioned earlier the mistake is/was in letting it linger.
Thats an obscene comparison. Where is the mass displacement of population and replacement of the population with Non-Kashmiri Indians? Where is the land grab? Where is the collective punishment and razing of whole neigborhoods to make way for the military? Where are the fighter jets dropping 500 lbs load on civilian neighborhoods?
Ponniyin Selvan
Point taken. But I suspect that Pakistan probably considers the fact that they tied down 300K+ Indian soldiers for a relatively minor investment of a few thousand terrorists to be a major success in its own right.