What is really wrong in the kashmir valley?

DAL LAKE, SRINAGAR, KASHMIR

After reading several articles on the issue of jammu and Kasmir, I am prompted to write something about the facts that we have either forgotten or not have been supplied to us.

I strongly believe that Kashmir is an integral part of India. But I would here present the compulsions of the then India's national leaders at the time of independence. In those days the nation of India was in fact on the paper only. Many unpleasant dicisions were requred to be taken, the partition of India being one of them.
The British Government had declared the nation of India independent after partitioning it into two parts: India and Pakistan. As parties to the partition process, both countries had agreed that the rulers of princely states would be given the right to opt for either Pakistan or India or—in special cases—to remain independent.

Just after independence, Kashmir was a lucid problem, as it was one of the biggest princely states. Maharaja Hari Singh had not given his mind about how, when, and in which country he would be acceding his state of Kashmir. Naturally he was reluctant to lose his independence.

Adding fuel to the fire, the Nawab of a tiny state of Junagadh (Gujarat) had fled to Pakistan. He had either voluntorily or by force signed the acceesion of his state of Junagadh (presently a district in Gujarat) with Pakistan. As the entire population of Junagadh was Hindu, Nehru and Sardar Patel took a stand that the voice of the majority of residents should prevail over the signature of a King or a Nawab.

Thus Junagadh was made a part of India.

Then came the Kashmir Issue. Here, forced by the Pakistan-backed aggression, the Maharaja of Kashmir signed the document of accession of his state of Kashmir with India. It is believed that Lord Mount Baton had acted positively for India.

In Kashmir, however, the case was quite revese than the state of Junagadh. The King was Hindu and the population was Muslim. Pakistan reminded Nehru and Sardar Patel about their earlier stand in the case of Junagadh. The borders between India and Pakistan had become lucid in those days. It resulted into the Pakistan sponsored war of 1948.

The hard fact was that the Indian Army was not yet completely, properly, divided among two new nations. Ironically the Jawans who fought the 1948 war were technically of the same amry. Ironically enough the helpless fellow Lord Mount Baton was still the commander of that undivided Army.

Under such circimstances, Nehru had to accept UNO's proposal to ask the people of Kashmir about in which country they want to be acceded. That was the proposed referendum.

Almost one third of the then Kasmir is occupied by Pakistan and the rest by India. (Certain parts of the then Kasmir are under the control of China, too).

The referendum was to be held in united Kashmir. It is a matter of debate why both the nations, Pakistan and India had not held the agreed referandum till the date. Though from our side we can say that we have successfully held free and fair elections in Kashmir.

After sixty years the issue of Kashmir is not settled yet.


ORIGNALLY POSTED AT : NAVAL LANGA's POLITICAL BLOGS

Hey, this is a very interesting article, thanks for posting it here..quite informative!

Hi,

Very much good article. Came to know about so many things of earlier India.

Regards
Priya

Very informative post.The resolution to a problem can only be arrived when the root of the problem is well understood.Thanks for the post.

I have read and I have reason to believe that Lord Mountbatten was not happy with the partition at all. He showed his ill-intentions in his address of 25 July, 1947,”I had to address myself to the problem of the mechanics of partition…a plan against my personal desire.”

However we have to rely on many biographies of those who were the main players of the partition drama. Our dicisions about the happening are subject to mistakes, too.

Dear Navaljee

With reference to the Kashmir problem, I do not claim to be a political analyst but as an Indian citizen, I give below my views on this subject.

1. The Kashmir problem, was a direct outcome of the Partition. One must credit our leaders then; of trying to make the best decisions in a time of violence, upheaval and trauma. Probably Sardar Vallabhai Patel had a premonition, like Lord Mountbatten, that Partition, on those terms, was not the best solution. As per records Sardar had stated that future generations may not understand how and why some decisions were made at this critical juncture in history. He almost seemed apologetic; stating that he hoped future Indians would accept and forgive any lapses that his Govt had made during those difficult days. Having said that, we must concede that he did all he could, given the volatile situation prevailing at that time.

2. Probably another feature that will permanently affect the subcontinent is the fact that when Mohd Ali Jinnah’s Muslim League party demanded for and got a theocratic Pakistan, India did not opt for a Hindustan in return. Study the implications of this decision. We have a tremendously unbalanced situation here, while the country is “ apparently” being divided into two on religious grounds, we find that one community can opt to stay either in Pakistan or in India(since India is secular), while the other communities were forced to flee Pakistan and move to India for safety. This is the real reason that Kashmiris still talk as if they have a choice whether to opt “to join” India or Pakistan, whereas someone from Varanasi or Tirupati does not have this choice! Where is the balance in this arrangement.Pls don’t get me wrong, even a country called Hindustan can still be secular, and equal rights can be granted to all citizens, but at least there is no confusion like today’s pseudo-secularism has brought about.

Regards.