By VIMAL SUMBLY
It is often said and argued, of course wrongly like all their other arguments, by certain separatist and secessionist apologists that Kashmir had acceded with India on “certain conditions”. Nothing can be more absurd than that. Nothing can be far from the fact. Kashmir could have imposed conditions if it was India that had proposed the accession. India never did.
India never initiated the process for “accession or annexation” of Kashmir with it, which it could easily have. It left the decision to the ruler of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh. The Indian Independence Act of 1947 had mandated that the rulers of the princely states were authorised to accede to whichever of the two countries they wanted to accede or remain independent, although independence was never a practical option.
Maharaja Hari Singh toyed with the idea of independence assuming that the strategic geographical location of his state could help build relations with the western powers. His personal astrologer had also advised him to remain independent, as he (the astrologer) had seen a glorious future for the Maharaja as an independent sovereign ruler.
The Maharaja signed a ‘Standstill Agreement’ with Pakistan, thus assuming that he was safe from that side. India, he knew, had not much interest in Kashmir and would never attack Kashmir to annex it, as Pakistan did. As the Maharaja was biding time, Mohammad Ali Jinnah outfoxed him by ordering the annexation of Kashmir. He used the tribals from the North Western Frontier Province, led and guided by Pakistan army, to attack and annex Kashmir.
According to Mehr Chand Mahajan, Prime Minister of the State of Jammu and Kashmir at the time of independence, Jinnah’s game plan was to get the Maharaja abducted and force him to sign the instrument of accession with Pakistan. That is the reason Jinnah had rejected the idea of plebiscite in the states of Jammu and Kashmir, Junagadh and Hyderabad.
The rulers/ nawabs of Junagadh and Hyderabad were Muslims. They had already made up their mind to accede with Pakistan despite neither being geographically feasible nor having Muslim-dominated population. Since the population of these two states was overwhelmingly Hindu, they would obviously have rejected Pakistan and opted for India in case the plebiscite was held. Jinnah knew it and instead depended on the rulers who had the authority to choose the country they would like to accede with.
Despite the State of Jammu and Kashmir having Muslim majority, Jinnah was not sure whether all of them will vote for acceding with Pakistan as popular Muslim Kashmiri leader Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, also known as Sher-i-Kashmir (lion of Kashmir) had opted for India and people of Kashmir would have followed him only and rejected the idea of joining Pakistan.
Jinnah thought that abducting the Maharaja of Kashmir and forcibly making him sign the instrument of accession with Pakistan would solve his problem. If the plan had worked, technically he would have got all the three states of Jammu and Kashmir, Hyderabad and Junagadh, with their rulers having acceded to Pakistan in accordance with the Indian Independence Act of 1947.
Also read: Thanks to BJP, Congress remembers Nehru
He knew it too well, even if the Pakistan army had managed to reach Srinagar, it would have been defeated and forced out by the Indian Army in any case. The Pakistan army and tribals had already reached the outskirts of Srinagar, up to Shalteng, when the Indian Army landed in Srinagar.
Point here is that the separatists, their apologists and those seeking “special treatment” for Kashmir conveniently ignore the fact that it was the Maharaja of Kashmir who approached India for accession and not the other way round. When Maharaja was himself desperate to accede to India, why would he impose any conditions? It is common sense. He was desperate to save his state from the marauding Pakistan army. Would he impose conditions while seeking help from India?
The State of Jammu and Kashmir and the Government of India reached an agreement at that time under which the defence, foreign affairs and communications would be taken care of by the GOI. But this was “not a condition” for accession. Hence all those arguments recalling the “limited” scope of accession are not only factually incorrect, but logically absurd as well. Would the Maharaja that time impose conditions or ensure survival for himself, his State and his subjects, when the Pakistan army and tribals were literally on his doorsteps?
Interestingly, rather shockingly, there are many people in India who readily buy the argument of the “conditional accession”, which never was. This is because most of the people are not aware about the historical facts that led to the State of Jammu and Kashmir acceding with India.
Nothing can be more absurd and hilarious than anyone saying that India has “occupied Kashmir”. The historical and the constitutional fact is that the Maharaja of the State of Jammu and Kashmir acceded with India in accordance with the India Independence Act 1947 of his own compulsion and not because of any force used by India.
Indian leadership at that point of time proved sagacious by making the Maharaja sign the instrument of accession, before providing him any military help. Had India provided military help without his singing the Instrument of Accession, India would have been treated as an aggressor. The historical and legal records are in favour of India.
As for India’s later nod to holding a plebiscite in the United Nations, that, according to Justice Mahajan, former Chief Justice of India, is invalid. India was not authorised to make any such commitment at that time. Because, it was the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir who had all the legal powers and authority by virtue of the India Independence Act of 1947 to decide the future of his State.
Just because India agreed to plebiscite, with so many conditions attached, does not mean India is bound to do that. Because, India, as Justice Mahajan argues, at that time did not have any legal authority to do that. If anyone could do that, it was the Maharaja of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and he had already exercised that option by acceding with India.
The best thing that Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led BJP government could do was to abrogate the Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which otherwise had caused and created multiple confusions and an imaginary doubt that there was something different about Kashmir's accession with India or that it was "conditional". Now it is simple and straight that Jammu and Kashmir is like any other part of the country and there is nothing special or conditional about it.
Follow us
