Background to Kashmir Issue
A BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO THE KASHMIR ISSUE
Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) was one of the largest of the ‘Princely States’ of colonial India. It is today divided between India and Pakistan. Jammu, the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh are the three divisions in the Indian part of J&K, whereas Mirpur, Muzaffarabad and the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) are in the Pakistani part of J&K. Today’s unrest is mainly concentrated in the Kashmir Valley and the Pir Panjal areas of Jammu.
The rulers of the erstwhile J&K were a Dogra family from Jammu. Gulab Singh, jagirdar of Jammu during the reign of Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Lahore, is believed to have helped the British treacherously in the Anglo-Sikh wars of the nineteenth century. After the British victory, Kashmir was added to his territories by the British in return for Rs 75 lakhs, and a token annual rent of twelve pashmina goats, one horse and three pairs of shawls.
Prior to India’s independence there was a vigorous movement in Kashmir for an end to the rule of Gulab Singh’s dynasty and establishment of a democratic political order. The movement also championed the cause of the Muslims of Kashmir who faced discrimination and oppression. Its main voice was the J&K Muslim Conference, which renamed itself the J&K National Conference in 1938. Its tallest leader was Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah.
When the British left India, all the ‘Princely States’ were believed to have regained their sovereignty and were free to join either India or Pakistan or be independent. Hari Singh, the ruler of J&K, prevaricated, while the National Conference wanted removal of the monarchy and establishment of democracy before any decision concerning accession could be taken. In this situation, a large mob of people from the North-West Frontier Province of the newly created Pakistan raided J&K with the connivance of the Pakistani authorities on 24 October 1947. While Hari Singh’s government was paralysed, the people of Kashmir Valley resisted the attempt to settle the issue of accession by force and the National Conference took over their leadership. India’s response to Hari Singh’s request for help was to demand that J&K should accede to India before the Indian Army could step into the State to stem the invasion. Thus it came about that J&K acceded to India.
The accession was predicated on the condition that J&K would be an autonomous province of India, with the Centre having power only over Defence, External Affairs and Communications. In turn, India assured the people of J&K that their view would be taken in a free and fair referendum or plebiscite before accepting the accession as final. This promise was made by India not only to the people of J&K, but also to the United Nations, to which body India complained of Pakistani aggression. The plebiscite was never held, in spite of the efforts made by the UN to persuade India and Pakistan to agree on the modalities of the referendum. The crux of the Kashmir movement is the demand that the right to self-determination guaranteed by promise of plebiscite should be honoured.
The autonomy promised by the instrument of accession was written into the Indian Constitution in Article 370. As the Central government was to have only limited power over the State, the State needed to have a Constitution of its own. Elections were held for the Constituent Assembly. The National Conference was certainly a popular party, but it was not the only political force in J&K. But India pinned its hopes on National Conference and its leader Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, who it was hoped would ensure merger of J&K with India. Hence the National Conference was allowed to use strong-arm methods to monopolise the Constituent Assembly. Yet, in due course, Abdullah was suspected of harbouring the idea of writing the promise of plebiscite into the State’s Constitution. He was arrested on 9th August 1953 and was in jail more or less continuously till 2nd January 1968. He was never tried in any Court of Law and never sentenced to imprisonment. He was simply jailed without reference to any law. Pliant leaders were encouraged to take his place condoning their corrupt practices. More and more powers were assumed by the Centre over J&K using the services of the pliant leaders. No one who held views inimical to India’s interests has been allowed to win elections in J&K. This strangulation of democracy led to a lot of dissatisfaction which reached its height in 1987 when the candidates of the Muslim United Front who actually polled more votes than their rivals were declared to have lost the elections.
This is the background in which militancy broke out in Kashmir in the year 1989. That the democratic assertion of the right to self-determination was suppressed by cunning and brute force, leaving Kashmiris with no option but ‘to take up the gun’, is the common observation of all the supporters and sympathisers of the movement. it was only in 1996 that elections of any kind at all were held in Kashmir Valley again, and then by the force of the Army together with the ‘renegades’, i.e., surrendered militants acting as armed agents of the State.
The armed forces and lately the police, especially the Special Operations Group, indulge in the most brutal forms of torture with complete impunity in J&K. And the political process supposed to have been initiated to resolve the ‘Kashmir issue’ just does not care to hear the Kashmiri people.
[Source: Kashmir: Will the Pain Never End? Impunity of Policing and Aimlessness of Politics: A Report. Publication of Human Rights Forum, Andhra Pradesh; People’s Democratic Forum, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee, December, 2007, pp. 53-54.]