India promised Kashmiris a plebiscite six decades ago. Let it hold one now. Plebiscite, without Indian or Pakistani intervention, holds key to Kashmir’s fate
Syed Haamid Bukhari
Kashmir is observing strikes since two months now demanding independence from India. As a liberal, I dislike ruling people against their will. True nation building is a difficult and complex exercise and initial resistance can give way to the integration of regional aspirations into a larger national identity- the end of Tamil secessionism is a classical example of this.
I was once hopeful of Kashmir’s integration into India but after six decades of efforts, Kashmir’s alienation looks greater than ever. The parallels between British rule in India and Indian rule in Kashmir has become too close for my comfort. Many Indians say that Kashmir legally became an integral part of India when Maharaja of state signed the instrument of accession. But such legalism becomes irrelevant when ground realities change. Indian kings and princes including Mughals acceded to British Raj. The documents then signed became void and irrelevant when Indians launched an independence movement.
The British insisted for a long time that India was an integral part of their empire, the jewel in its crown and would never be given up. Imperialist blimps remained in denial for decade. I fear India is in similar denial on Kashmir.
The politically correct story of the Maharaja’s accession ignores a devastating parallel event. Just as Kashmir had a Hindu maharaja ruling over a Muslim majority, Junagadh (Gujarat) had a Muslim Nawab ruling over a Hindu Majority .The Hindu maharaja in Kashmir agreed to accede to India and Muslim Nawab in Junagadh wanted to remain with Pakistan.
However, while India claimed that Kashmiri accession to India was sacred, it didn’t accept Junagadh’s accession to Pakistan. India sent troops into Junagadh and Pakistan sent troops into Kashmir. The difference was that Pakistan lacked military means to intervene in Junagadh, while India was able to send troops into Srinagar. Junagadh’s Nawab fled to Pakistan, Kashmir maharaja sat tight and India proved that its double standards on Junagadh and Kashmir were breathtaking.
Do you think the people of Junagadh would have integrated with Pakistan after six decades of genuine Pakistan’s effort? The answer is big NO! Then can one really be confident that Kashmiris will stop demanding Azadi and integrate with India?
British came to India uninvited. By contrast, Sheikh Abdullah, the most popular politician in Kashmir, supported accession to India subject to ratification. However his heart lay in independence for Kashmir and soon he maneuvered towards that end. Sensing his maneuvering, the then Indian Prime Minster jailed Kashmir’s Prime Minister and his long time friend Sheikh Abdullah, by declaring Kashmiri’s accession was final and no longer required ratification by plebiscite. The fact that Kashmir had a Muslim majority was held to be irrelevant, since India was a secular country empowering citizens through democracy.
Democracy in Kashmir has been a farce for most of six decades. The riot began with Sheikh Abdullah in 1951 when he rejected the nomination papers of all opponents and so won 73 out of 75 seats unopposed. Nehru was complicit in this sabotage of democracy.
Subsequent state elections were also rigged in favour of leaders nominated by New Delhi. Only in 1977 was the first fair election held and was won by Sheikh Abdullah again. But he died after a few years and rigging returned in 1987 elections that sparked the separatist uprising, which continues to this day. Many Indians point to long episodes of peace in the valley and say the separatists are just a noisy minority and often some say ‘Algavadies are Atankvadis’ but they often neglect the source which trigged the movement. Britain built railway and canal networks in the world. It said most of the Indians were satisfied with economic development and that independence was demanded by a noisy minority. This is uncomfortably similar to the official Indian response to the Kashmiri demand for Azadi.
Indian rule in Kashmir is not a classical colonialism. India has pumped vast sums into Kashmir, built railway tracks, not extracted revenue as the British Raj did. Kashmir among the poorest states during the Raj has improved but still the income per captia is very low. Recently in an interview to NDTV, two different figures came out which showed the difference. Indian statistical data showed 31000 INR as individual monthly income of a Kashmiri and result of other research revealed that the income is only Rs 1500-2500. To some extent Kashmir enjoys wide civil rights that British Raj never gave to Indians. Many Kashmiri people are in IAS, IPS and various central services. Also some elections like 1983, 1977, 2002 and 2008 were perfectly fair. But Kashmiris nevertheless demand Azadi.
India promised Kashmiris a plebiscite six decades ago. Let it hold one now. Let people decide the outcome, not the politicians and armies of India and Pakistan. Misconceptions and illusions are there among people of India that Kashmiris are terrorists and want to join Pakistan, but the fact is Kashmiris who have been killed since last 20 years and those 65 who were killed recently in firing by Indian troops were Kashmiris not Pakistanis.
Unfortunately, Kashmiri’s moment lack leadership and those who are at forefront don’t know themselves what they are leading us all to. India’s majority of population looks towards Kashmir from Pakistan’s prism and think that Kashmiris want to mingle with Pakistan.
Kashmir’s condition in reality is different from what Indian biased media presents to its people all over India. Why there is no interference of Human Rights Commission in Kashmir killings? Many of these channels say that those killed were holding Pakistani flags in their hands and thus are terrorists without differentiating between a Pakistani flag and an Islamic flag.
Author can be reached at ssyedbiouster@gmail.com
