(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.
Folks,
In absence of the resident Kashmir expert (Kumar whatever or Naya Daur) could I interject as the other Kashmiri lurker here. Having lost our family home of last 8 generations in Srinagar, I feel I can add something here.
Firstly, I am very amused at the level of punditry on Kashmir on this board :-). With exception of a few people who make a lot of sense (Krishnan etc) and others who make sense when they know about stuff and ask honest questions when they dont (Amardeep etc) there is a lot of white noise 🙂 Also, it has been very amusing to note how many, many political discussions on Kashmir degenerate into a discussion on our crooked noses and skin color.
Folks,
In absence of the resident Kashmir expert (Kumar whatever or Naya Daur) could I interject as the other Kashmiri lurker here. Having lost our family home of last 8 generations in Srinagar, I feel I can add something here.
To add some value here, let me just stick to what I know for sure either as a fact or as undeniable pieces of history as learned from my time in Srinagar.
Kashmiri is a language – that is spoken in just one form. It is very different than Dogri, Urdu, Hindi etc. I have often described it as something between Sanskrit and Russian. As in, its grammar, words etc are very Sanskrit based, but it sounds (at least to my Russian friends) like a language from their neighborhood. Kashmiri has (quickly degenerating into had) its own script – Sharda (a synonym for Saraswati). However, after the last 600-800 years of rape of Kashmir – it can be written in the Urdu script or in the Devnagri script. I can speak with any Kashmiri Muslim with ease about Sachin Tendulkar (although we might not be able to read the same conversation that we both write). A dogra, Laddakhi or Pashtun guy would not understand it at all.
Kashmiris on both side of the LoC feel frustrated by their government. As someone rightly pointed out, we feel that while India accepted Kashmir in its dominion, they failed to execute on the implicit promise to the Kashmiri people – protecting them. Having had a few members of my family in the armed forces, I can say confidently that India is much stronger militarily and in terms of support of the people that it can tourniquet the militants in the valley. Most of them are young lads with no hatred of hindus. Two of the guys I used to play cricket with in srinagar apparently ended up picking guns. We (the Kashmiri poeple) feel that while we have done a good job settling down in the NOIDAs and Punes of India, we deserve to go back. The kashmiris in the valley had a VERY stable state pre-1990. Most of the muslims there know that they were converted from hinduism a generation or two back (including the Abdullah family) – so they dont really hate hindus. Yes, they do have a lot of sympathy for the palestinian cause and for the pakistan cricket team – but who cares? I dont!
Now this is where I digress from facts and go into some facts with a liberal dose of my opinion. This opinion is also why my family hates me when I start this discussion! 😉 The indigenous support of young muslim lads in the valley has been gained primarily because they have been screwed over the last 400 years or so. I dont know how many people know it but ALL kashmiri hindus (or batts/pandits whatchumaycallit) are Brahmins. The reason is that in 1300-1400 time period, when the western islamic rulers were trying to make inroads in India, they realized that the only way to increase their presence is to convert the local masses to islam. The Kashmiri Brahmins had pretty much butt-cked (pardon my french) the lower strata, so when this lower “class” saw a new community that gave money to anyone who joined, provided education and employment to its people – they were like fk yeah! There was an upper strata too that converted because of a mix of pressure and the lure of power. Even until 1988 – while Pandits were 15% of the populace, they held 90% of the top positions in the government, the city council, the medical schools etc. Given that there were no real industries over in Kashmir, and that only so many people who could run the shikaras – situation became really bad. So these guys thought that hey if the pandits are out of the valley we will get the good jobs. sounds like a good idea. but it was not, because the hindus left, the government thinned down so much that there were no jobs left. and the ones that were, were occupied by the muslim elite, so the poor lads get screwed anyway. So this is not a religious struggle peeps, it is a class struggle, it is a caste struggle, just like anywhere else in the subcontinent.
So what is my solution: definitely not rocket science, but the only good solution in my mind. Cut off the flow of trained mercenaries from the other side of border. Incentivize the f**k out of kashmir. Give companies 20 year tax benefits, with government insured assets. Give the people who work there an ireland like tax structure. Given the weather and everything, it will not be too long before you start getting the people there. It is going to be expensive for sure, but look at the alternative. Provide jobs to young people. It is not really that complicated!
Phew, now that I have killed the last 30 mins very well, let me grab some lunch.
Paranoid, It is nice to hear from someone who has grown up in Kashmir. In providing incentives to Kashmir the Indian government has to deal with a MAJOR political issue. Which is of letting non-kashmiris to be able to buy property. If the government is able to do that, it will change situation preety fast.
I would love to move to Kashmir. To live near the mountains with great weather and actually be in India … It can not get much better than that. But I dont think it is possible in any time soon.
How would you do this?
well the quick way would be to bomb the camps across the border but that would attract unneeded attention to India when the Islamic extremist and the PA are busy cannibalizing each other as we speak. I honestly believe that if India just stands its ground, which it can afford to due, Pakistan will run out of diversions in 5-10 years before its people start really wondering and protesting how much money is being diverted from the national exchequer to keep the military so large and capable. The PA and the military establishment in Pakistan have been used to getting away with anything to “protect” Pakistan from India. Kashmir, is militarily and economically untenable for Pakistan today. If they gain anything territory wise, it will because India gave it to them. Folks, countries do not give up land, especially those countries surrounded by 2 nuclear powers it has militarized borders with. It would be a move that would make India look weak.
India has respected Kashmiri’s autonomy, and has not flooded the state with outsiders lured by government financed jobs. Kashmiris should take a step back and understand this point. It could have pulled a Tibet and kept the ethnic Kashmiris around for song and dance routines while visitors from the mainland snap pictures as they unload off of buses, trains and planes. The Kashmiri population would be diluted and in 30 years all would be forgotten.
The West looked away from 1990 to 2001 when the camps in Pakistan were only hurting India, but now they too have a vested interest in seeing them away. This will force any Pakistani leader into a precarious position for the foreseeable future balancing those powers that basically keep its economy alive and those domestic forces which for religious reasons want nothing to do with the former.
RC: I am personally against the idea of article 370. Even Kashmiris have to go through a long and winded road to go anywhere. I feel that kashmir issue has enough financial and macroeconomic tentacles that it needs to be dealt with that perspective. whether you give the ownership to Tatas from Mumbai or KP Singh from Delhi or to some food and juice producing Kashmiri Muslim is not the issue. Industries will generate employment and dry the roots of the terrorism tree. That industry could have been tourism, but the problem with tourism is that
wasn’t there a comment which linked to passthroti website? moderators deleted them??
I am not moderating this thread, so I’m not sure what comment you are referencing, but we usually only delete comments which violate our comment policy.
I deleted it — it contained a gratuitous insult (as I recall, it referred to Pass the Roti bloggers as “crazies”).
At any rate, if there is a PTR post that relates to Sheikh Abdullah or Kashmir I’d be happy to see a link to it.
I didn’t see the original comment, but that’s mighty kind of you, Amardeep!
But if we dish it (and we do), we should take it too.
Although Kashmiris are said to be the true specimen of Aryan race, yet the last authoritative word about their origin has not been said so far. Scholars are divided on the question of the ancestory of Kashmiris. However, many Western and Indian scholars have argued that Kashmiri Pandits, without any doubt, belong to Aryan race. Pandit Anand Koul says, “it is certain that it (Kashmir) was a colony of Aryan immigrants from Central Asia. Their features and fair complexion be speak them of the inner Aryan race”. Thompson is of the view that the Aryans were a long headed race of tall stature with narrow noses and fair complexion. Their purest representatives are found today mainly in Kashmir. Monier Williams declared the Kashmiri Pandits as the finest type of Aryan race. George Campbell says that the Kashmiris are quite High-Aryan in the type of their features – very fair and handsome, with high chiselled features, and no trace of inter-mixture of the blood of any lower race.
Hey guys,
Here’s some information that I found on koausa.org . Their blood is apparently “pure” and “superior” to us all.
The equation between the Tamil Tigers and Islamic terrorists armed and supported by Pakistan is wholly false. First, the Tamil issue is esentially one of persistent discrimination by the Sinhalese majority, though it has improved in recent years. Second, the Tamil question is localised, secular, and nation specific. Islamic terror is transnational and ideological; it has nothing to do with issues of ‘oppression’ or displacement or linguistic discrimination. It wouldn’t matter if a country were pefectly secular, whatever that means in real terms. Islamic terrorists would still hold it as a crime that there are Moslems living under what they consider infidel rule.
It’s nonsence,misunderstanding,propaganda about the reality of kashmir.so for as the reality is concerned..kashmir was never the part of india and kashmiries will never like to be the part of india…It is the bloody SHEIKH ABDHLLA who is wholley responsible for the issue in perticular and all mainstream politicians in genral.
I think the prevealing situatation in j & k shows the broad vission of Ali Mohammad Jenha when he said ” that hindus and muslims are two differant nations,because both have differant in religious ,culture,taste,dress etc…”but allas ! the leadership of india in genral & Sheikh Abdullah in perticular did not understand…..
yes,indian says that kashmir is the integral part & crown of india,but at this the india goverment did not take any pain to save the precious livies of kashmiri inocent people .so we very such intelligent people got proof of these words when india says “we need kashmir , not kashmiri people”. Remenber these words ,that kashmir is not the gold for india as well as the world ,but kashmiri hands are gold ,which make whole kashmir as gold. so respect and save these gold hands ,so that,these hand will make india as a golden colour ,but not gold.
In the case of Kashmir our Indian nation lived a massive lie and all our adherence to Sanatana Dharma was tested and we failed. The accession was to be based on population majority not what the whims of local Maharajas decree . In refusing to allow Kashmir to accede to Pakistan we acted out of greed and selfishness not out of truth and Justice and we actually refused to accept the principle on which Pakistan was founded laying ground for decades of strife which hurt both coutries immensely. Kashmir was large a body of land with overwhelming Muslim majority that was contigous to Pakistan and rightfully belonged to Pakistan based on the priciple on which the two countries were created . .The Dogra Maharaja did not own it and by any measure of truth should not have had any say in it. We are one nation in the world that must live by truth no matter what the cost .Its this quality of Bharat that has kept its spiritual culture alive the longest in history . Our spiritaully short sighted leaders failed terribly in the matter of Kashmir . Kashmir was beautiful and strategic and we acted out of attachment to it but attachment to truth would have been higher and nobler and we would have never lost in the long run.
buena guy, Kashmir has been culturally associated with the rest of India for at least 2,000 years, long before the advent of Islam and Moslem invasions. And it’s simply not even true that Kashmir is or was an overwhelmingly Moslem majority state; there are large minorities of Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists, though many Hindus were forced to leave the area, and not just after 1990. There’s another issue here as well, which you and others are missing. Namely, the nature of the movement. The Kashmir separatist movement is about nothing except religious hatred and ethno-chauvinism. There is no elevating, enriching, visionary quality about, something that would make people the world over, including in India itself, really be touched and moved to the extent of giving it a degree of moral support. It’s simply a reactive “anti” type movement and cause. That won’t do for this day and age.