India should blame herself for the first ‘sin’ ~ a monumental blunder which set in motion a chain of violent conflicts. When the Accession was complete and the Indian Army was fully capable of winning back the territories captured by Pakistan, there was no necessity of third-party intervention, especially, by the United Nations. Here again, the British politics of divide and rule was at play.

Nehru referred the matter to the Security Council in January 1948 at the instance of the GovernorGeneral, Lord Mountbatten despite strong objection from Sheikh Abdullah who had consented with the Maharaja for accession to India. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Zafarullah Khan outwitted India’s Representative, Gopalaswami Ayyangar in the Security Council and his great debating skill managed to make the Security Council pass Resolution No.47 on 21 April 1948 clearly favouring Pakistan and ignoring India’s complaint against Pakistan for armed invasion and genocide.

Advertisement

It is apparent that the Security Council did not act in a non-partisan manner and failed to distinguish between the aggressor and the victim. It is India and not Pakistan that had approached the United Nations for justice. Instead of indicting the aggressor, they punished the victim. The Security Council considered the matter from the political angle ~ geopolitics of great powers rather than the legality of the question of accession. The UN Resolution calling for creating conditions for a Plebiscite to settle the Kashmir question led to endless complications.

The intransigence of Pakistan to implement the basic condition of vacating the occupied territories made the UN Resolution a non-starter. Refusal to accept subsequent formulas proposed by Mountbatten, Nehru and Dixon prolonged the agony. Over time, with the tectonic changes in the two countries, the long 18-Clause UN Resolution No. 47, which had lot of conditionality became practically unimplementable and was, therefore, rendered infructuous and dead while Pakistan kept on whipping the dead horse.

As the Dixon Plan revealed, it was absurd to hold plebiscite for J&K as a whole because different regions of Kashmir had different population compositions and there were many districts in Jammu and Ladakh regions where Muslims were in the minority. The Dixon Plan suggesting region-wise Plebiscite and Nehru’s subsequent offer to hold Plebiscite in the Kashmir Valley only, which implied possible partition of Kashmir, were stoutly rejected by Pakistan.

Pakistan’s relentless jihad to take Kashmir by force and undo Kashmir’s accession to India created a hydra-headed monster to target India in different forms – open war, proxy war, infiltration of terrorist groups, cease-fire violations, organized terror attacks, radicalization of Kashmiri youths, Islamization of society and forming pro-Pakistan groups within Kashmir. Pakistan has so far waged four wars – in 1947-48, 1965, 1971 and 1999 – but succeeded only in causing more misery to the people of Kashmir and complicate issues.

The Chinese aggression has added another dimension to the Kashmir question. Following the Sino-India war of 1962, China occupied Askai Chin, a big chunk of the Ladakh region. In addition, China has acquired large tracts of land ceded by Pakistan in Gilgit-Baltistan for the construction of highway and railway network as part of the ChinaPakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Despite objections from India, China has gone ahead with the CPEC projects passing through the occupied areas of Kashmir.

China has been continuing with their aggressive posture and incursions in the Ladakh and the Northern areas in cohort with the Pakistan regime. Geographically, undivided Kashmir comprises four distinct regions – the core Kashmir Valley region, the Jammu region, the Ladakh region and the Northern region of Gilgit-Baltistan.

The State’s diversity in the shape of a mini empire increased with the addition of new territories under various regimes. Maximum expansion of the State took place under the reign of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. His nominee in Kashmir, Raja Gulab Singh’s able General, Zorawar Singh, annexed Rajouri, Kishtwar, Suru valley, Kargil, Ladakh and Baltistan thus extending the boundaries of Kashmir from the borders of Afghanistan to the south of Tibet. Undivided Kashmir has had a total area of 224,739 sq km (86,772 sq mi). Another estimate shows the total area as 222,236 sq km.

Pakistan occupies an area of 85,846 sq km (33,145 sq mi) comprising ‘Azad Kashmir’ (POK) and Gilgit-Baltistan. China occupies Aksai Chin, a part of Ladakh, with an area of 37,555 sq km (14,500 sq mi). India controls an area of 101, 338 sq km (39,127 sq mi) consisting of Jammu, Kashmir Valley and Ladakh. This shows that India has been left with less than 50 percent of the erstwhile Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan controlling about 30 per cent and China about 20 per cent. Thus, the Princely State has been badly divided among three nations.

By a proclamation of 31 October 2019, the Indian part of Jammu and Kashmir has further been divided and constituted into two separate Union Territories – Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Statehood of Jammu and Kashmir is expected to be restored soon. Pakistan has also reacted by declaring GilgitBaltistan as their fifth Province. Many political pundits and defence analysts believe that Pakistan’s jihad for Kashmir is dictated more by economic compulsions rather than concern for the Kashmiri people.

Pakistan knows that Kashmiri Muslims are much better off in India. After all, more than 200 million Muslims, almost equal to the entire population of Pakistan have been living happily with equal rights in democratic India. Politically, they want to settle a score against India and ‘complete the unfinished agenda of partition.’

The hidden agenda is to get control of the Indus waters, which is possible only when Kashmir is annexed by Pakistan. Pakistan knows that India has the leverage in controlling the flow of the Indus Rivers and in a critical situation in future, India could dry out their irrigation system in the Punjab. The Indus is the lifeline of Pakistan, and they feel its control cannot be left in the hands of an enemy country. The Chinese adventures in Ladakh and in the northern and eastern borders of India are also motivated by the policy of controlling the water sources. Much water has flowed down the Indus over the last 75 years.

As seven decades of conflicts and wars could not bring about a reasonable solution, naturally, desperation would be large writ on the faces of the Kashmiri people. But the reality of the situation needs to be understood and accepted by the people and the politicians of both countries. It is a daydream if India thinks that having been an integral part of India, the whole of J&K would one day come back to India.

Even a major war may not be able to achieve this. China, which has launched CPEC projects (roads and railways) in Aksai Chin and Gilgit-Baltistan and integrated these areas in the framework of their ‘empire,’ will never return these parts of Kashmir. Similarly, Pakistan will never agree to vacate POK and GilgitBaltistan; in fact, their claim is for the whole of J&K, a demand which they are not prepared to give up. Is there no escape from this Kafkaesque situation in Kashmir? Will the stalemate continue for another hundred years?

The current respective positions taken by Pakistan and India are so hardened that all hopes to break the impasse have disappeared. India has already created the road map for a peaceful settlement through two landmark Agreements with Pakistan – the Shimla Agreement, 1972 and the Lahore Declaration, 1999. But Pakistan is always under pressure to disown the Agreements before the ink dries.

The Shimla Agreement should form the basis for taking forward the peace process. The Shimla Agreement which defined the Line of Actual Control (LAC), not to be disturbed by either of the two countries, gave the implicit direction that the LAC could one day be converted into the new international border between India and Pakistan. It will require statesmanship, political will, and sagacity on the part of both the countries to resolve the outstanding issues in a just manner. Once peace is established, these two populous nations could be the best of friends in a free-trade area as the peoples in these two countries share the same heritage, language and culture.

The history of humankind is the history of bloodshed ~ man against man, tribes against tribes and nations against nations. History is replete with instances of countries and nations being badly divided, partitioned and mutilated to serve political ends. Instances of Poland, Germany, the Indian States of Bengal, Punjab, and Assam, Tibet and the Soviet Union are fresh in our memory. Similarly, extraordinary circumstances and unfortunate conflicts have been responsible for the beautiful Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir being badly divided between three nations.

To seek perfect justice in realpolitik is like running after a mirage. The sooner the people of Kashmir accept the hard reality and reconcile themselves to the fate of a divided State, the better for the people and the two nations. Peace and harmony will automatically follow.

(The writer is a former Dy. Comptroller & Auditor General of India and a former Ombudsman of Reserve Bank of India. He has authored several books and can be reached at brahmas@gmail.com)