KASHMIR: THE Pakistani Perspective
Saumitra Mohan
Kashmir is a long festering dispute between India and Pakistan spoiling for a just solution to provide succour to all the parties involved. On its resolution depends not only the future of South Asia, but that of world peace and security as well. After all, Kashmir is one of the prime reasons that keeps the South Asian sub-continent always on the boil, keeping alive a tinder-box situation ready to explode anytime.

But being in India, most of us are only cognizant of the arguments strengthening the Indian case on Kashmir. Though Kashmir's accession to India is a fait accompli today, so much of water under the bridge under the vastly changed circumstances than it was in the 1940s, but going by the United Nations Security Council debates that followed India's reference of the Kashmir issue to the UN, it seems that Pakistan was on a stronger wicket then than it is now.

Since Indian arguments on Kashmir are very well-known, I would here outline only the arguments presented by Zafarulla Khan, Pakistan's representative to the UN, during the debates in the Security Council. Without compromising the force, tenor and import of his arguments, I have condensed his arguments running into hundreds of pages for the purpose of this article. For effect, Zafarulla Khan's arguments are presented here in first person as if he himself is speaking. Where his arguments are quoted verbatim, they are within quotes.

Jammu and Kashmir (henceforth Jammu and Kashmir is referred to as Kashmir) is naturally and geographically integrated to Pakistan than it is to India. The state gets disconnected from India for about half an year, but it remains integrated with Pakistan throughout the year. Its rivers and roads run along Pakistan's borders. All the three Kashmiri rivers flow into Pakistan and the only rail link is also with Pakistan. Even Kashmir's trade and business are mostly with Pakistan and all the major markets for Kashmir's products are in Wazirabad and Rawalpindi in Pakistan. The economy of Pakistan is much more dependent on Kashmir as its 19 million acres of land are irrigated by the three Kashmiri rivers.

Again, Kashmir is not as strategically important to India as it is to Pakistan. Kashmir's accession to India would put enormous defence burden on Pakistan and also to some extent on India. Kashmir can add nothing to India, neither strategically nor economically, but if India succeeds in securing Kashmir's accession, it can break Pakistan in future when it wants to do (This argument of Mr. Khan seems to have proved prophetic). Also Poonchis in Pakistan army would be highly demoralized if Kashmir accedes to India and it would demoralize the whole of Pakistan's army in general.

Also, culturally Kashmir is much more near to Pakistan than it is to India. We have martial and religious ties with Kashmir. About 77 per cent of Kashmir's population is Muslim and according to the partition formula of Muslim majority states acceding to Pakistan and Hindu majority state acceding to India, Kashmir belongs to Pakistan. On 15th august, 1947 when British paramountsy in Kashmir ended, there was jubilation all over Kashmir for liberation from the tyrannous 'Dogra Raj' of the Maharaja. Pakistan Day was celebrated in Kashmir with jubilation. But very soon, a reign of terror was unleashed in Kashmir by the Maharaja to suppress people's movement there and unauthoritatively acceded to India when it failed to repress a genuine people's movement.
We similarly don't recognize Kashmir's accession to India as India did not recognize Junagarh’s, Hyderabad's and Mangrol, Manavadar and other states of Kathiawar which lawfully acceded to Pakistan. India advanced the argument that a non-Hindu ruler can't decide the fate of Hindu majority states. If India does not recognize their accession to Pakistan, then why should we recognize Kashmir’s accession to India? And anyhow Kashmir's accession to India is provisional and not permanent as is obvious from the Governor General of India's letter to the Maharaja of Kashmir wherein he says, "In the special circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my government has decided to accept the accession of Kashmir state to the Dominion of India in consistence with their policy that in the case of any state, where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be settled by a reference to the people."

It was emphasized further in various pronouncements of the Prime Minister of India. The Indian government has also accepted that the matter would be finally decided by a plebiscite. Pandit Nehru's in his broadcast message of 2nd November, 1947, said, "The Government of India (GOI) is prepared, when peace and law and order have been established in Kashmir, to have a referendum held under international auspices like the United Nations." In his telegram of 8 November, 1947 to the Pakistan's Prime Minister, the Indian Prime Minister says that the GOP should repeat their declaration that they will withdraw their troops from Kashmir as soon as raiders have withdrawn and law and order is restored, that the Government of Pakistan (GOP) should publicly undertake to do their utmost to compel the raiders to withdraw from Kashmir, that the GOI and GOP should make a joint request to the United Nations to undertake a plebiscite in Kashmir at the earliest possible date.

According to the UN Security Council resolution, Pakistan is to withdraw first from the occupied Kashmir territory and the entire Kashmir is to be restored to the lawful government of Kashmir before any plebiscite takes place. The resolution also envisages demilitarization of Kashmir, but it is strongly resisted by India. One really wonders as to what are the Indian forces doing in Kashmir now that the tribesmen have been repulsed. Though we are to initiate the withdrawal, but how do we do that unless and until we could be satisfied of the Indian intention. Even if Pakistan was to initiate, it must have been synchronized with the Indian withdrawal. Unless we know the withdrawal plan of India, how can we proceed and GOI is not forthcoming on that.

Any plebiscite under the shadow of Indian forces and a pro-Indian government in Kashmir would be a farce. Sheikh Abdullah, who disputed the Dogra dynasty's claim over Kashmir and had led the 'Quit Kashmir' movement, has now been co-opted by the Maharaja and the Government of India. Sheikh Abdullah is today pro-Indian National Congress and also enjoys good rapport with Prime Minister Nehru. Today, Sheikh wants the Maharaja to be not only the Maharaja of Jammu, but also of Kashmir. He has travelled a long way and does not represent the true voice of the Kashmiri people. Kashmiri people are not duly represented in his government today.

The only time Sheikh Abdullah was popularly elected was on a Muslim Conference (MC) ticket, today he is out of MC and does not represent the popular voice. When asked about the release of MC leaders from the jail if a plebiscite takes place in Kashmir, Sheikh Abdullah said during a press conference, "Those who were likely to act as the fifth columnists of a foreign state would remain in jail." Here, allusion is to those who would support Pakistan. Definitely, any plebiscite under a partial government and in the presence of the Indian forces, would never be free and fair. But, the GOI is not ready to withdraw its forces or a pro-Indian government. If the GOI could summon the rulers of Alwar and Bharatpur and suspend their ministries for a free investigation into a police matter, what prevents it to do so in case of Kashmir?

The GOI could ask Kashmir's Maharaja to be out of state till the plebiscite was over under a neutral administration supervised by the United Nations as also suggested by the United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP). We won't take Indian's representative's argument that there would be no interference. We don't accept India's insistence to hold plebiscite when GOI's troops are stationed there in Kashmir and its nominees run the government. The mere presence of India troops, even in they do nothing, is enough to intimidate people in making free and fair exercise of their franchise during any such plebiscite. We also demand that the Muslim Conference leaders are released before any such plebiscite takes place.

The situation in Kashmir can be well guessed by what The Times, London says in its April 13, 1948 issue. It says, "The local administrators—all new men—chosen by Sheikh Abdullah are vociferously anti-Pakistan and the people, by nature excitable and easily malleable, have reacted accordingly." The UNCIP also did not recognize the sovereignty of any government in Kashmir and felt that the matter be best resolved by a plebiscite. The UNCIP in its resolution suggested an impartial-neutral administration or a coalition government of the two sides of the political parties. We are ready for both, but it is the GOI which is dragging its feet because it wants the military occupation of the whole Kashmir. The UNCIP also suggested that the matter can also be submitted to arbitration. Prime Minister Attlee of United Kingdom and President Truman of the USA also suggested arbitration. We agreed, but India backtracked. Why did India backtrack? Why did India develop cold feet, if it was so sure of its legitimate claim over Kashmir?

We are accused of sending tribesmen to Kashmir which is totally false. If we really had any territorial ambitions, then why would we send tribesmen? We could have very well sent a full-fledged army to occupy Kashmir, but we did not do that which we really regret now. I plead guilty on behalf of the people of Pakistan that when the persecution of Kashmiri people started, we should have sent our forces which we did not. We were under no international obligation not to intervene. It is India which committed aggression and not Pakistan. After all, the Maharaja of Kashmir wrote a letter to the GOI on October 26, 1947 and the Governor General of India sent him a reply on October 27, 1947 assuring him of Indian support. But by the morning of October 27, 1947, Kashmir had already been occupied by the Indian troops. Any such occupation would require enormous preparation because of the difficult terrain. So, it is obvious that before the Maharaja wrote a letter to the GOI, the latter had already decided on occupying the state by military force. It is definitely India which is an aggressor, and not Pakistan.

Today, about six to seven lakh Muslims from Kashmir are refugees in Pakistan. Why should they come to Pakistan, if they are as anti-Pakistan as India claims? Who are the aggressors and tyrants? We or they?

Coming back again to the allegation of Pakistan sending tribesmen to invade Kashmir, if one looks at the map it would be obvious that Parchinar, from where these tribesmen come, is up at the Kurram valley. It is inside, and far inside, the tribal area and is outside North West Frontier Province (NWFP). If was alleged that it was in NWFP. It is almost on the border of Afghanistan. It can't be said that we are sending them. We definitely had military posts there which we have withdrawn because of the huge expenses it involved and also because we wanted friendship with these tribes. If tribesmen move freely and intervene into Indian territory, we did not purport that.

It might be possible that some of these tribesmen would have intervened on their own to help their co-religionists who were being suppressed by the Maharaja of Kashmir, but the fact remains that there exists a genuine people's movement in Kashmir for Kashmir's liberation. So even if these tribesmen withdraw, the movement there won't end because it is the people of Kashmir who are waging it. An overwhelming majority of these tribesmen are ex-soldiers, so they are already experienced and trained; we are not training them. Today, the leaders of Muslim Conference are in jail, who are the real representatives of the Kashmiri people; their nomination papers were rejected during the Assembly polls in Kashmir.

India's secular credentials are belied by the large-scale genocide of the Muslims in India in the aftermath of the partition. Millions of Muslim were massacred and a Muslim-majority Kapurthala state was absorbed into India after its 65 per cent of Muslim population was either massacred or driven out. We received many telegrams from Muslim Conference leaders for help as oppression of Muslims in whole of Kashmir was going on untramelled. We were informed that the Maharaja even started importing Hindus and Sikhs from India to change the demographic Profile of Kashmir. We sent a telegram to Kashmir's Prime Minister to restore peace as our soldiers from Poonch and adjoining areas were getting disturbed. Even Sheikh Abdullah raised his voice against this oppression before his cooption. We received many telegrams from Muslim Conference detailing massacres of Muslims by Dogra military. All this point to the repression unleashed on an unarmed people's freedom movement by the Maharaja of Kashmir.

Today, India says let's settle other outstanding disputes leaving outstanding disputes leaving aside Kashmir as it is before the United Nations. But keeping it apart means keeping it alive. What is the use of making pious declarations of friendship if a major dispute goes on with a risk that any day the fighting might flare up again? India has already absorbed Junagarh and Hyderabad and is in occupation of the major portion of Kashmir. And now after losing so much, we are asked to make a declaration not to fight. What we argue is that let us settle the matter in advance of everything or if it can't be done, let us, at least, agree upon the procedure for the settlement and also for meeting any trouble that might arise during the procedure and then let us declare that we shall not fight.

Disbanding and disarming of Azad Kashmir forces was made a precondition for carrying out its obligation under the UN Resolution, but India deliberately ignores the fact that disbanding and disarming of Azad Kashmir forces was to be done at the plebiscite stage and not at the truce stage. India also conveniently forgets that according to the second part of the resolution, India was to withdraw bulk of its troops from Kashmir and those of remaining Indian troops at a latter state i.e. plebiscite stage.
M. N. Roy, a prominent Indian leader in his 'Radial Humanist' rightly attributed the entire Kashmir problem to India's lust for conquest of Kashmir. According to him, Kashmir should go to Pakistan as per the partition formula. To Roy, Maharaja has no locus standi to plead on behalf of the people of Kashmir as after the British paramountsy lapsed, sovereignty has reverted to the people.

So, we don't recognize Indian claim to Kashmir despite its legal accession to India as India did not recognize Junagarh's, Hyderabad's and many other small states' accession to Pakistan. We demand a plebiscite as per the UN Security Council Resolution under a neutral government, supervised by such international agency as the United Nations.

(1998)