kashmir problem from ambedkarite perspective

8/11/2019 Kashmir Problem From Ambedkarite Perspective

1/7

Kashmir Problem From Ambedkarite

Perspective

Dr. K. Jamanadas,

Region and the People

The state of Jammu and Kashmir has Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist population,mostly concentrated in valley, Jammu and Laddhak respectively. It isstrategically situated with Tibet to east, China in northeast, Afghanistan to north-west, and Gilgit had become part of the State. Most of the traffic was by landroads to the state and all the supplies were coming to state through the areasnow gone to Pakistan, and the travel to state from Indian side was nonexistent.There was no communication by road from India to J & K till the declaration ofRadcliff Award.

Maharaja Hari Singh was the ruler and Ramchandra Kak was the Prime

Minister. Maj Gen Janak Singh replaced him before 15th August 1947. Later Mr.Justice Meher Chand Mahajan replaced him. Hari Singh was considered to be acastiest ruler. He was not only against the Muslims but also against the Pundits.The Rajputs enjoyed 60 % seats in services, Muslims had no equal opportunityin trade and industry, outsider Hindus were welcome and out of 25 'jagirs' only 2were of Muslims. [EPW 21.12.1991 q/b Dahat]

There was one political party under popular leader Sheikh Abdullah, the"National Conference", which was agitating for freedom and was more or less acounterpart of Indian National Congress. Maharaja thought majority Muslims willruin his kingdom and Dogra Army could save that. Maharaja and Jinnah tried tocurb the party.

After plan of leaving India was announced on June 3rd, 1947, Lord Mountbattenvisited Kashmir and told Maharaja that British Government will not recognize J& K as a dominion state and he should better join any dominion - India orPakistan - before 15th August 1947. But J & K Government announced itsdecision to enter "Stand Still" Agreement with both India and Pakistan. Evenafter signing the agreement, Pakistan cut of supplies of food, petrol and otheressentials to J & K, and put pressure on J & K to accede to Pakistan.

Pak Aggression

The new Prime Minister, on 15th October 47, complained to the British PrimeMinister that Pakistan broke Stand Still Agreement and stopped supplies andstopped Railway service from Sialkot to Jammu, and requested him to advise

Pakistan to deal fairly with J & K and stop raids on the border. There was alsoprotest to Governor General Jinnah.

On 22nd October, all out invasion of J & K started, along Jehlam Valley roadthrough N. W. Frontier province, the raiders being tribesmen led by regular Pakofficers. All Muslim forces in Muzafarabad deserted and joined the aggressorsas advanced guard. Brig. Rajender Singh could gather about 150 soldiers tofight against the raiders but he and all soldiers were killed. On 24th Oct. Theraiders captured the Mahura powerhouse, supplying electricity to Shrinagar.


2/7

Shrinagar was immersed in darkness. Raiders declared they would captureShrinagar by 26th October 47. How Kashmir was accessed

Government of J&K approached Government of India for military help on 24thOctober. New Prime Minister Mahajan reached Delhi on 25th October. GOI didnothing except sending V.P.Menon to Shrinagar. Both Mahajan and Menon

went to Shrinagar. Maharaja was sent to Jammu for safety, and both came toaerodrome and in the morning reached Delhi.

Nehru was requested to send troops. Mahajan said, "Give army, take accessionand give whatever powers you want to the popular party, but the army must flyto Shrinagar this evening, otherwise I will go and negotiate terms with Mr.Jinnah, as the city must be saved". On this Nehru flew into rage and askedMahajan to go away. Sheikh Abdullah, who was over hearing the conversation,sent a slip of paper to Nehru, which completely changed Nehru's attitude.Sheikh Abdullah wanted power in his hands and Maharaja to be only aconstitutional head.

Accession agreed to

Indian Cabinet agreed to the accession and to send army. V.P.Menon andMahajan again went to Jammu. Menon flew back with Instrument of Accessionsigned by the Maharaja. After a long discussion in Defence Committee, it wasdecided to accept the Accession subject to proviso that "a plebiscite will be heldin the State when the law and order situation allowed."

Dr. Ambedkar advised to send Mahar battalion, and also explained that guerrillatactics to be applied.

In early hours of 27th October, more than one hundred planes - civilian as wellas RIAF - carried the soldiers with requirements. Jinnah got furious and orderedGeneral Gracy, the acting C in C of Pak Army to send Pak troops. But theGeneral refused saying he required orders from Field Marshal Auchinleck, whoflew next day to Lahore and explained to Jinnah that in the event of warbreaking out, the British Officers in Pak Army would be withdrawn.

On 1st November 1947, Governor General Lord Mountbatten flew to Lahore,and suggested to Jinnah that the plebiscite should be under UN, but Jinnahpressed for it to be under joint control of Governor-Generals of both India andPak. On 4th November, Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liyakat Ali Khan announcedthe accession to India to be a Fraud.

Military Operations

Military operations were under Major General Kalwant Singh. The MaharBattalions were employed as advised by Dr. Ambedkar. Their stay was for 18months. Their work was highly appreciated. They stopped the aggression andrepealed the enemy with great valor. It was exclaimed that if they were allowedto fight fully, there would have been no POK.

Heroism in Kashmir

The Times of India 26.10.52 praised the valor of Mahar battalion in the following


3/7

terms:

"In Kashmir War in December, 1947, a battalion of the Mahar Regiment earnedundying fame by its bravery and devotion to duty. The part, which this battalionplayed in the battle of Jhangar, will be written in the golden letters in the historyof Indian Army.

"On December 24th, 1947, enemy numbering between four to six thousandattacked our position near Jhangar, the attack being premeded by heavy mortarand small arms fire. It looked as if nothing could stop the onslaught of thetribesmen but the Mahars held their posts which matchless courage. In thehundreds of tribesmen were moved own by the devastating fire of the MaharMachine gunners who when their ammunition was exhausted, fought the enemyin a hand to hand battle.The bravery of this battalion was recognized by theaward of one Mahaveer Chakra and five Veer-Chakras to its men. Theirmatchless courage and devotion to duty played a most important part in turningthe tide of the battle at a critical moment." On the departure of these bravesoldiers - without any break for 18 months, -- General Thimmaya, in his addressto them, praised their work in high esteem saying, they "on all occasions

behaved with highest sense of gallantry courage and endurance." Andobserved, "the name of your battalion will resound through the hills and thevalleys for a long time to come"

United Nations

The case was taken to United Nations on the persuasion of Lord Mountbatten,on 25th January 1948. This was against the advice given by Dr. Ambedkar toNehru. Ambedkar desired that the aggressors must be evicted by force, butNehru did not agree. Pakistan denied any hand in the aggression. Indiamaintained her position that legally Kashmir is part of India. Dr. Ambedkar hadwarned that this problem will not be solved by the United Nations, but it willbecome more complicated. Ultimately a Cease-Fire was ordered from 1st of

January 1949.

Ambedkar's solution to Kashmir Problem

Ambedkar talked on Kashmir problem on many occasions. On 10th October1951, Ambedkar in a statement of Resignation from the Cabinet, showed his notmerely dissatisfaction "but actual anxiety and even worry" about the foreignpolicy of India. He said that, every country in the world was our friend in 1947and today, after four years, all our friends have deserted us, and there is no oneeven to second our resolutions in the U.N.O.

Reminding words of Bismark that, 'Politics is the game of the possible', and ofBernard Shaw that, 'good ideals are good but one must not forget that it is oftendangerous to be too good', he criticized that India's foreign policy is in completeopposition to these words of wisdom uttered by two of the world's greatest men.

He termed it "dangerous" and explained, the great drain on our resources madeby our military expenditure, as out of Rs. 350 crores of revenue we raiseannually, we spend about Rs. 180 crores on the Army. It is a colossalexpenditure that has hardly any parallel. This colossal expenditure is the directresult of our foreign policy.


4/7

He said that our quarrel with Pakistan is on two grounds, one is Kashmir andthe other is the condition of our people in East Bengal. We should be moredeeply concerned with East Bengal.

Even about Kashmir, the issue on which we are fighting, who is in the right andwho is in the wrong. The real issue to my mind, he said, is not who is in the right

but what is right and he observed: "... my view has always been that the rightsolution is to partition Kashmir. Give the Hindu and Buddhist part to India andthe Muslim part to Pakistan as we did in the case of India. We are really notconcerned with the Muslim part of Kashmir. It is a matter between the Muslimsof Kashmir and Pakistan. They may decide the issue, as they like. Or if you like,divide it into three parts; the Cease-fire zone, the Valley and the Jammu-Laddhak Region and have a plebiscite only in the Valley. What I am afraid of isthat in the proposed plebiscite, which is to be an overall plebiscite, the Hindusand Buddhists of Kashmir are likely to be dragged into Pakistan against theirwishes and we may have to face the same problems as we are facing today inEast Bengal." Ambedkar's views were praised by most of the national as well asinternational newspapers including the Manchester Guardian.

Tunnel to Kashmir

When the "Nehru Tunnel" was being contemplated, Ambedkar had opposed thevery idea. He said:

"... I find that Prime Minister had launched upon a project of digging a tunnelconnecting Kashmir to India, Sir, I think it is one of the most dangerous thingthat Prime Minister could do. That might happen that the Prime Minister, indigging the tunnel, thinks that he alone would be able to use it. He does notrealize that a conqueror who comes to the other side and captures Kashmir, cancome away straight to Pathankot and probably come into the Prime Minister'sHouse. I do not know". He reminded that England was reluctant for Anglo-French Tunnel for fear of European Aggression in the event of occupation of

France by enemy forces. He observed that someday, if China, Pakistan orRussia could occupy Kashmir and then this tunnel will bring the enemy in ourcourtyard. [Khaimode, vol.11, p.100]

In this respect, we should give a thought to present day declaration by AtalBihari Bajpayi of providing a Railway Link from Jammu to Kashmir.

Article 370 in the Indian Constitution

It seems Ambedkar was against Article 370 in the Constitution, which gives aspecial Status to the State of J&K, and it was put against his wishes. BalrajMadhok reportedly said, Dr. Ambedkar had clearly told Sk. Abdullah: "You wishIndia should protect your borders, she should build roads in your area, sheshould supply you food grains, and Kashmir should get equal status as India.But Government of India should have only limited powers and Indian peopleshould have no rights in Kashmir. To give consent to this proposal, would be atreacherous thing against the interests of India and I, as the Law Minister ofIndia, will never do it." Then Sk. Abdullah went to Nehru, who directed him toGopal Swami Ayyangar, who approached Sardar Patel asking him to do something as it was a matter of prestige of Nehru, who has promised Sk. Abdullahaccordingly. Patel got it passed when Nehru was on foreign tour. On the daythis article came up for discussion, Dr. Ambedkar did not reply to questions on it


5/7

though he did participate on other articles. All arguments were done by KrishnaSwami Ayyangar. [Dahat:1997: 82]

Recent Discussion

During recent times, it was Ms, Tavleen Singh who in an article in Sunday

Express of 20 April 2003, made a daring suggestion of third party internationalintervention by America in Kashmir dispute. She was correct in saying that Indiahas already asked American help to tame down Pakistan and that we mustrealize to start with, that the problem can not be solved domestically.

Now supposing with some good fortune, wisdom prevails on all sides and suchtalks do take place, what the Indian side hopes best to bargain for? What is notonly just and reasonable but also possible under the circumstances for theIndian side?

The answer to this has been given long time back by Dr. Ambedkar, who hadsaid, as mentioned previously, that, the Hindu area of Jammu and Buddhistarea of Laddhak be separated from the Muslim area of the Valley. These non-

Muslim area should be the part of India and the valley be given independentstatus with every right to them to do what they want.

RSS realizes bifurcation is good

It is now after so many years that RSS has come to realize the sagacity of thisformula and asked for bifurcation of J & K on such lines within Indian framework, but the pride and prejudice will not allow them to implement even that.

Rule by force, how long?

From Pakistan point of view, no matter which group of people rule over

Kashmir, it is going to be a Muslim rule. What more does Pak want? UnlikeHindus with thousands of castes and groups, Muslim society is comparativelymore monolithic. If the individuals do not matter, how does it matter to Pak,whether Kashmiri people feel more comfortable in India or not?

From Indian point of view, Indian spending in Kashmir directly and indirectly hasbeen so great that lot of developmental works could have been possible in restof India with that money. Now, further, it is contemplated to spend on Railwaysin Kashmir from the resources from rest of India, as if it is going to be with youtill the sun and moon last. The British could not rule India by the force of swordfor long, will India or for that matter Pakistan rule Kashmir for long against theirwishes? If the answer is negative, then why is the conflict?

Resources in Kashmir

After all, what are the resources available in Kashmir? Are they worth fightingfor-for both India and Pakistan? It is not oil rich Iraq. Let us forget about bordersecurity, a point well discussed by Ambedkar in "Thoughts on Pakistan".Security of a country does not depend upon physical boundaries, these days.Otherwise, America would not have been able to attack Afghanistan or Iraq.

If the resources of Kashmir would have been plentiful, would the British have


6/7

sold it to Gulabsingh Dogra, who not only surrendered himself but madeDeelipsingh, the last heir of Ranjitsingh to surrender on 29th March 1849. As areward of this, the British sold him the province of Jammu and Kashmir for250,000 pounds sterling, and returned the treasury of Suchetsingh. Thus thePunjab got slavery and the Dogras got the province of Jammu and Kashmir.

A lost case for India

The Hindus, as a matter of fact, lost Kashmir forever in thirteenth century, whena boy of tender age, Ratanju, of no fixed religion or nationality was refused entryto Hinduism, and was converted by a Muslim fakir Bulbulshah to Islam. His sonShahamir usurped the throne. Kashmir, a Buddhist and Hindu country till then,became Muslim very soon. It is said, those pundits, who refused to becomeMuslims, were put in gunny bags and drowned in river Jehlam by Ratanju andShahamir. The place in Shrinagar where they were drowned, is famous evennow by the name of 'watta mazaar'. [Santram, Sarita Mukta vol. 8, p.162.]

Chenab formula

Muzamil Jaleel in Indian Express of 28 June 2003, wrote of ChenabCompromise. Though the official stance of both India and Pakistan says theywant full control of Kashmir, they both are - may be under pressure fromAmerica - likely to come to accept the idea of compromise. India would behappy if LOC becomes International boundary, which has been strongly refutedby Pak. Now and again India talks of POK, knowing well that there are notakers.

What does Pak want to settle for - apart from full control of J & K - nobodyknows. But Sardar Sikandar Hayat Khan Prime Minister of POK, last month, hadcalled upon both Delhi and Islamabad to consider River Chenab as the Border -ostensibly a Pak motivation. Australian Diplomat Sir Owen Dixon had expressedsimilar idea in 1950.Even in mid sixties, the Britain and US were urging both

India and Pakistan for partition. In Pakistan media there seems to be support toHayat proposal. Also the Kashmiri separatist leadership seems to favour theidea.

Will the caste ridden India accept it? Those who were talking of "AkhandBharat", had to accept the Partition of India, as predicted by Ambedkar. ButIndia and Pakistan both had to suffer a lot during the process with loss of life,property and human suffering, as the safeguards as advocated by Ambedkarwere not followed.

Now the talks are likely to start on the problem. Partition along the river Chenab,which runs north of Jammu is one of the proposals for long time. But thepartition involves human angle and all those precautions advocated byAmbedkar during partition of India and Pakistan will have to be taken, if thehuman tragedy has to be averted.

Print this PagePublished on: July 1, 2003Send e-mail [email protected] questions or comments about this web site.No Copyright: Dalit E-Forum
http://www.ambedkar.org/jamanadas/KashmirProblem1.htmmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.ambedkar.org/jamanadas/KashmirProblem1.htm


7/7

DISCLAIMER :www.ambedkar.org does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information/content of news items/articlesmentioned therein. The views expressed therein are not those of the owners of the web site and any errors / omissions in the same are of therespective creators/ copyright holders. Any issues regarding errors in the content may be taken up with them directly.

kashmir problem from ambedkarite perspective

Documents