Kashmir Issue by Dr. Farooq Khan

1
THE KASHMIR ISSUE
Back ground, Current situation and the solution
The area of Kashmir is 2,22,236 square kilometers. Out of this area 1,01385 square kilometers
are occupied by India whereas the area of Pakistani Kashmir is 78,114 km. An area of 42,735 is
under the control of China.
The total population of Indian occupied Kashmir is 9 Million out of which 68% are Muslims. It
means that the number of Muslims in Indian held Kashmir is 6.1 Million while the number of
Non-Muslims is, approximately 2.9 million.
The population of Pakistani Kashmir is, approximately, 3 Million. The population of Northern
Areas is 0.9 million Hence, the numbers of the Muslims throughout Kashmir is 10 million and
the Non-Muslims are about 3 million. Out of these 10 million Muslims, about 6.1 million are
settled in Indian occupied Kashmir (Reference No-1)
India Kashmir is divided into three separate sections. First one is Jammu, which borders with the
Pakistani District, Sialkot. Hindus hold majority in this section. Second section comprises of the
valley, which is, in fact the real Kashmir. This valley, comprising of 90% of the Muslims
population is, 165 km long and 40 km in width. The total area of the valley is 5400 Square km
and is the real bone of contention. Third is the section of Laddakh. This vast expanse is
comprised of mountainous ranges and is less inhabited. Most of the population follows
Buddhism. The Kargil District is situated in the same territory that borders with Pakistan.
Muslims are in majority here.
The Pakistani Kashmir is also divided into three parts. First is the area of Muzaffarabad which is
known as Azad Kashmir. Its government works under the control of the Pakistani Ministry from
Kashmir affairs and is practically run as a province of Pakistan. However, it has its own
2
President, Prime Minister and separate Supreme Court. Second part comprises of the areas of
Gilgit and Baltistan. Recently a council of Northern areas has been elected owing to their
separate entity since long. However, these areas too, are controlled by the Government of
Pakistan.
The above figures show that even at present the Muslim are 77% whereas Non-Muslims are 23%
of the total population of Kashmir.
THE HISTORY OF KASHMIR
A regular system of government was established in Kashmir in 2450 B.C. A person named
Gonand established his rule at that time. Afterwards the local dynasties had been ruling the area
for 2000 years. Ashoka of the Moria dynasty conquered Kashmir in third century B.C. He was a
follower of Buddhism and thus promoted this religion a lot during his regime. After him, Hindus
and Buddhs ruled over this territory for several hundred years.
On the fourteenth century, a Muslim named Shah Mir came from Swat and associated himself
with the Royal court of Kashmir. With the passage of time he became Prime Minister of the state
during the rule of Ranchan. During this period, Ranchan embraced Islam at the hands of a
Muslim Saint, Syed Bilal Shah commonly known as Hazrat Bulbul Shah. He was given the
Muslim name Sultan Sadr-ud-din. After the death of sadr-ud-din in 1322 A.C, Shah Mir
established his rule over Kashmir. Hence, he established the regular Muslim state in Kashmir
assuming the title of Sultan Shans-ud-din. Since Shah Mir had been elected as the Sultan by the
local people because of his qualities, experience and insight into the problems, most of them
embraced Islam at their own sweet will. Thus, Islam was not imported in Kashmir by Muslim
conquerors rather it spread here due to the local factors. Muslim ruled over Kashmir for 480
years after Shah Mir had established his rule in 1339 A.C. The Mughal Emperor, Akbar declared
it a province of his kingdom in 1586.
The Sikh Regime:
In 1798, Ranjit Singh was appointed the Governor of Lahore by Zaman Shah, the ruler of Kabul.
Ranjit Singh soon established his rule over Punjab. A senior official of Kashmir, Beerbal Dar and
3
two Muslim chieftains of Pir Punjal, Malik Kamdar and Malik Namdar tempted Ranjit Singh to
attack Kashmir in 1818 who consequently, conquered it in 1819. Kashmir remained under the
subjection of Sikhs during the next twenty-sixyears. During this period Laddakh and Baltistan
also became a part of Kashmir after having been conquered by Sikhs.
During the Sikh regime, ten Governors were appointed. Out of these five were Hindus, three
Sikhs and two Muslims. At the time of Ranjit Singhs death in 1839 Sheikh Ghulam Mohi-ud-din
was succeeded by his son, Sheikh Imam-ud-din as Governor.
In March, 1846, Kashmir was annexed to the dominions of the Britons when they conquered
Punjab.
THE BACK GOUND OF BRITISH-SIKH AGREEMENT OF LAHORE
The British, as a policy, used to entrust the duty of law and order to the local authority of a state
after having levied a symbolic tax, if they accepted their dominance and thus saved themselves
from a nuisance. Hence, as per policy, the English entered into agreements with hundreds of big
and small states in the Sub-Continent and awarded properties to several people. These landlords
were the rulers of their territories in a way and were responsible for the safeguard of their
territorial limits. The Sikhs were brought under their subjugation because they had refused to
accept their dominance but distant areas under the Sikh rule were stile away from British control.
Besides this, some territory between Punjab and Kashmir was also still under the Sikh control.
Therefore, the English deemed it fit to hand over the custody of this area to Gulab Singh Dogra,
their trustworthy and confidant.
It seems appropriate here to throw some light on the personality of Gulab Singh and his family.
This Hindu family was very influential during the Sikh regime. Gulab Singh was the Prime
Minister of Punjab when Ranjit Singh died. He was additionally, the ruler of Jammu as well and
expanding this territory, he had captured Laddakh and Baltistan in 1837. After the death of Ranjit
Singh, he became an agent of the British. The success of British attack on Punjab was in fact, due
to Gulab Singh. The British used to award generous endowments to their agents. Gulab Singh
was allocated Kashmir as well besides Jammu, Poonce, Laddakh and Baltistan, which already
were in the custody. According to an agreement signed on March 9, 1846 in Amristar, Gulab
Singh paid Rs. 75,00000 to the British Government (this amount was originally the ransom
4
money which was due after the Sikh defeat. Since the government treasury was not rich enough
to pay this amount, Gulab Singh offered to pay it). On return, the British vowed to protect the
Dogra rule of Gulab Singh from every foreign aggression.
Sheikh Imam-ud-Din, at that time was the governor of Kashmir deputed by the Sikhs. He refused
to accept the accord. Hence, the British helped Gulab Singh in taking over the control of
Kashmir through their military troops sent under the command of General Nicholson.
The British had another motive behind establishing a semi-independent government in Jammu
and Kashmir. They smelled great danger from Russia and it was in their interest to establish a
buffer state in this region that bordered with Russia and the China (Reference No 2)
Thus the Dogra family ruled Kashmir for a period of further 100 years under the umbrella of the
British Government.
The commencement of Political Activates
Generally, speaking, most of the Dogra rulers were prejudiced and cruel towards Muslims but
Hari Singh, the one who assumed power in 1925 proved to be the worst and the situation was
aggravated during this regime. In the meanwhile some Muslim Youth, having completed their
education from Aligarh, started that political activities secretively by opening a reading room.
Sheikh Abdullah was one of them who had obtained the degree of M.Sc from Aligarh University.
In July, 1931, a representative Muslim delegation meet with Mahraja Hari Singh and informed
him about their demands. On coming out of the place, a young member of this delegation Abdul
Qadar delivered and emotional speech against Hari Singh. He was soon arrested on 13 th of July.
When the court proceeding started against Abdul Qadar and central Jail, thousands of Muslims
entered the Jail to hear the proceeding. The police opened fire and killed 21 Muslims. It was the
first incident of political struggle of the Muslims of Kashmir that unfortunately, emerged as a
bloody event. The riots continued till the end of July and even after that occasionally.
The Formation of Muslim Conference:

5
As already mentioned, the educated Kashmiri Muslims used to assemble in Fateh Kadal rading
room for their political activities. They continued holding their meetings after that under the
banner of young Men Muslim Association. At this juncture, they realized a need for establishing
a political organization on regular basis. This organization included all important Muslim leaders
including Chaudry Ghulam Abbas but Sheikh Abdullah was the main activist. This organization
held its first meeting at Sari Nagar in October 1932.
The decision of changing the title of Muslim Conference to National Conference:
In 1934, Maharaja Hari Singh held the election of legislative assembly. This assembly comprised
of 75 members in total. The 40 members had to reach assembly through election while the rest
were to be nominated by the Maharaja. The twenty one seals out of the elected ones were
allocated to Muslims. The fourteen out of the twenty one seats were won by the Muslim
conference.
This assembly was in fact, a powerless body as the Maharaja had refused to empower it in any
respect. Consequently, all elected members, Muslims and Non-Muslims resigned from their seats
in 1936. It opened a gateway for co-operation between Muslims and conscientious Hindu and
Sikh leaders. They realized the need to launch a joint movement. Thus, the title of Muslim
conference was changed as National Conference. This change took place on 28th June, 1938 and
twelve eminent Muslim, Hindu and Sikh leaders brought a joint manifesto of National
Conference 29th August of the same year. This manifesto offered every citizen of Kashmir
indiscriminately to join the National Conference and play his role in the political struggle of the
state.
Reinstatement of Muslim Conference
It was beyond any possibility that the political movement being run in the whole Sub-Continent
should not leave any impact or Kashmir. Many activists especially Hindus within National
Conference were influenced by All India while a large number of Muslims were impressed by
the program of the Muslim league. This contrast kept on increasing with the gradual pace of time
to such an extent that Chaudhary Ghulam Abbas delinked himself from National Conference and
declared the reinstatement of Muslim Conference in 1941. Several Muslims including Mir Waez
6
Yousaf Shah rejoined Muslim Conference soon after this announcement. Both the parties
continued their struggle separately after that.
The new election for the state assembly took place in January, 1947. This assembly had twenty
one seats for Muslims. The nomination papers of the Muslim conferences candidates from six
constituencies were rejected under the pretension of certain legal hitches whereas the Muslim
conference bagged all the rest of fifteen seats.
HOW IT BECAME A PROBLEM
1. The Unprincipled stand of Muslim League and Muslim Conference
When the process of granting freedom to India was in its early shape and was decided that
Muslims would have a separate homeland known as Pakistan, it was a natural consideration for
the British Government what to do with hundreds of states within the Sub-Continent. Should
they be made bound to annex themselves to either of the two countries of they should be
considered independent? This problem was especially realized seriously about the states situated
on the borders of India and West Pakistan or near West Pakistan. It was an issue of great
significance because several states with the majority of Hindu population were being ruled by
Muslim rulers and the Muslim majority Kashmir was being ruled by a Hindu. Here, it must be
remembered that mostly these rulers were leading luxurious prone and immoral life and tried to
keep the masses obedient to them through tyranny and every other possible source.
Congress took the stand that it, being a democratic party, considers all such sates undemocratic
and that their independent status should be eliminated with the establishment of Pakistan and
India. Every state should be annexed to either of the two countries after seeking the opinions of
the masses through plebiscite. Nehru announced that any state not joining the Legislative
Assembly would be considered as disloyal and that it would have to face the music.(Reference
no-3)
All India congress committee passed a resolution on 14th June 1947, which declared that the real
power rested with the masses of those states and they were free to decide about their future. This
stand of congress was principle and democratic. If it had been accepted, Kashmir would naturally
have become a part of Pakistan without any dispute.
7
Unlike this, Muslim league adopted the viewpoint that the ruler of every sate had the right to
declare independence and league would support it. Liaqat Ali Khan issued a policy statement
through his speech delivered on 21st April, 1947. He further said;
The rulers of Indian state would be free to make any such agreement with India or Pakistan
which they might think would be in their personal interests or in favour of their regional
connections. They might declare their states as independent and sovereign.(Reference no-4)
The political leaders of India held a crucial meeting with the Viceroy on 13 th June, 1947. Nehru
adopted the same viewpoint that every state would have to annex itself with either of the two
countries. On the contrary, Jinnah adopted the stand that states would be free to decide whatever
future they liked. (Reference no-5)
Quaid-e-Azam said while explaining the Muslim leagues policy through a detailed statement
that the Indian states would be absolutely independent and free to choose their way after the
British rule was over. They would side with any of the two countries or remain independent if
they liked. (Reference no-6)
The working committee of Muslim league reaffirmed this stand on 8 th July 1947. Quaid-e-azam
expressed the same opinion his meeting with a delegation of Kashmir Muslim conference.
(Reference no-7)
The stand of Muslim league was contrary to two nation theory and democracy. The whole
Independent movement particularly the Pakistan movement was run on pure democratic
principle. If democracy was the basic human right, then why it was not considered suitable for
the masses of states. In the same way the two nation theory declared as right for the whole India.
Should have been deemed fit for these states as will.
The stand of Kashmir Muslim conference on the issue of Kashmir was also unprincipled.
Chaudhary Ghulam abbas was behind the bars those days and the party policy was formulated by
Chaudhary Hameed-ullah through the consultation of Quaid-e-azam and Chaudhary Ghulam
abbas. It was the policy of the Muslim conference at that time to keep Kashmir as an independent
and sovereign state under the leadership of maharaja Hari singh. Therefore, on 10 th may, 1947,
8
Chaudhary Hameed-ullah requested the Maharaja The great to announce the freedom of the
stats without any further delay. He assured the Maharaja that he would have the support of eighty
percent Muslim population in this case who would great him warmly as the first constitutional
monarch of the independent and sovereign state of Kashmir.(Reference no-8)
In the meanwhile, it was reported in the press that the Maharaja had an intention to announce the
independent of Kashmir soon. Chaudhray Hameed-ullah, the president of Muslim conference
greeted him on this act though telegram on 4th July, and assured him of his partys loyalty.
(Reference no-9)
On 10th July, 1947, a Muslim conference delegation comprising of Chaudhray Hameed-ullah, the
acting president of the party and Ishaq Qureshi met Quaid-e-azam and informed him about the
situation in Kashmir. Quaid-e-azam repeated his viewpoint even on this occasion that the rulers
of all such states were free to decide their future. (Reference no-10)
Chaudhray Hameed-ullah issued a statement from sari nagar on 15th July that the Muslim of
Kashmir had voted in favor of independence under the leadership of the Maharaja. (Reference
no-11)
The stand of Muslim conference was contrary to principle as it was accepting a cruel as a
constitutional head of state. It was advocating in favor of independence instate of annexing
Kashmir with Pakistan. It was obviously the two nation theory.
On 19th July, Muslim Conference reshaped its policy and passed a resolution with majority in
favor of Kashmirs annexation with Pakistan. The reason was the British House of Lords passed
a unanimous law on 17th July to liberate India and the Prime Minister Attlee said it very clearly
that all states would have to join either India or Pakistan. (Reference No-12)
The Muslim Conference held a meeting to discuss this law and Chaudhari Hameedulla, the
acting President strongly supported the independent status of Kashmir. Chaudhary Ghulam
Abbas advised the convention through a letter from the prison that they should pass a resolution
in favor of independence. Late, Chaudhary Ghulam Abbas revealed through another letter that
9
his advice to Muslim Conference and the draft of the resolution sent by him was based on the
instructions of Quaid-e-Azam. (Reference No-13)
It must be borne in mind that even after the resolution of Muslim Conference, the Muslim league
kept its point of view that the ruler of every state was free to decide his future. Muslim league
never supported the motion passed by Muslim Conference through any statement.
This stand of Muslim league, in fact, gave birth to Kashmir dispute.
2. Redcliff Commission and Muslim League
The issue of fixing the boundaries of Punjab and Bengal arose at the time of the division of
India. It was, therefore decided that a boundary commission should be appointed for this
purpose, Quaid-e-Azam proposed that Sir Redclif should be appointed as the Chairman of the
Commission and that he should also be granted the casting vote in case of any dispute. Nehru
opposed this suggestion because Redcliff had never visited India before. He, on the contrary,
suggested that the final decision should rest with the British Federal Court. However, Quaid-e-
Azam opposed him. Mountbatten proposed that a U.N commission should be empowered to take
the final decision. Finally, the Quaid-e-Azam suggestion was accepted. Redcliff was appointed as
the chairman of the commission and the right of final decision was also granted to him.
(Reference-14)
The above proposal was against the interest of Pakistan and the established principles of Justice.
It was impossible for Muslim League to object on the decisions of Redcliff after that. It was also
clear that to leave the decision of fixing the boundaries of even some delicate areas at the
discretion of an individual was wrong.
However, there were many complications in this issue. For example, the Non-Muslims were in
majority in rest of all Tehsils. This District had a remarkable number of Qadiani population as
well because the town of Qadian was also situated in Gurdaspur. They were also included
Muslim population, the Non-Muslims would been in majority in Tehsil Gurdaspur. Tehsil
Pathankot linked Jammu to India. Hindus were in majority in Jammu and Pathankot. However,
the network of roads and the head works of rivers was so complicated that it was almost
impossible to segregate these Tehsils keeping in view the prevailing circumstances. It was just to
annex tehsil pathankot with India and the tehsils of gurdaspur, batala and shakargarh to Pakistan.
10
But simply the tehsil of shakargarh was annexed to Pakistan whereas rest of three tehsils went to
India.
India could link itself with jammu and Kashmir through pathankot though it had to construct a
new road as soon as possible.
If the final decision rested with the federal court, the tehsils of batala and Gurdaspur would
probably have gone to Pakistan but this door been closed by the league iself.
Therefore, the proposal of appointing Redcliff as chairman of boundary commission granting

him absolute power was the second blunder that let Kashmir fall to Indian hands.
3. The unrealistic policy of Muslim league
It is a serious issue why Muslim league adopted undemocratic and unprincipled policy about
these state. Was it so because the British Federal Cabinet had laid no restriction on these states as
it was made clear through a memorandum issued on 12the May, 1946? (Reference No-16)
The fact was contrary to this because the British empire deserved more to express its motive. It
the British point of view is considered more authentic, it should be borne in mind that the British
Government had repeatedly expressed in 1947 that states would have to join either of the two
countries. For example, Mountbatten had adopted the same stand on the occasion of his meeting
with political leaders on 13th June. (Reference No-17)
Prime Minister Attlee had expressed the same opinion during a discussion in the parliament on
10th July 1947. (Reference No-18)
On 16th July Lord Listowel, Minister for Indian affairs elaborated this point by saying that it was
in the best interest of Indian states to join one of the two countries failing which they might face
11
some tragedy. He also made it clear that the British Government would not acknowledge the
independent status of any state. (Reference No-19)
On 25th July, Mountbatten in an address urged the rulers of these states to join one of the two
countries and abstain from announcing their independence. (Reference No-20)
It is, therefore, beyond any possibility that Muslim league had adopted this view merely on legal
grounds.
In fact, Muslim league expected to win the sympathies of these rulers by supporting their
independent status and thus their possible annexation to Pakistan. These states could be divided
into four groups. The first group was surrounded by India on all sides. The most prominent state
in this group was Hyderabad Decca, which was being ruled by Nizam, a Muslim whereas 87% of
Hindu population resided here. The second group included the states that bordered with Pakistan
but had Hindu population in majority and were being ruled by either Hindu or Muslim Rulers. A
few such states were Jodhpur, Bhopal and Jaisel Meer. Third group consisted of the states, which
had see routes to Pakistan. These states had 80% of Hindu population but were being ruled by
Muslim rulers. Junagarh was one such state. Fourth group had the states linked geographically
with Pakistan and had the Muslim population in clear majority but were being governed by Non-
Muslim rulers. Kashmir and Kapurthala were two such states.
According to the principles of Justice, democracy and the two Nation theory, the first three
groups should have been annexed to India whereas the fourth group should have become part of
Pakistan. Democracy, a blessing and need for rest of the masses of India should also have been
accorded to the people of these states. It was just and sane that the states with Muslim population
should have been demanded by the Muslim league. This demand would be so logical that there
was no opposition possible from Congress and the British Government. Unfortunately, Muslim
league did not follow this path. The leadership of Muslim league throught that the Hindu
Maharajas of Jodhpur and Jaselmir and Muslim Nawabs Bhopal, Junagarh and Hyderabad, will
be saved from becoming a part of India, whereas Kashmir could be captured by using force.
Quaid-e-Azam said, Kashmir will fall to Pakistan like a ripe fruit. (Reference No-21)
It was realized even at that stage that the policy adopted by Muslim league might endanger the
annexation of Kashmir to Pakistan but it was not considered a serious threat. (Reference No-22)
12
Amazingly, the gravity of this threat was not realized at all, though it was a criminal negligence.
This why, when Mountbatten approved the annexation of a Musim majority state of Kapoorthala
with India on the request of its Sikh ruler even before Redcliff Award, Muslim League did not
even make a formal of token protest. Obviously, it could not have protested owing to the policy
adopted by herself.
Under, the prevailing situation, no Muslim occupied a senior capacity in the Army and under this
obligation the whole leadership of the newly formed Pakistan Army had to be chose from British
forces and thus capturing Kashmir by force was a day dream. In fact, for a long time Pakistan
and India had joint defense Council headed by Supreme Commander field Martial Akinlec. This
Council had its head office in Dehli. (Reference No- 24)
General Messervy and General Gracy were the chief and deputy chief of Pakistan Army and they
worked under the same Council. They were all servants of British Empire as well. There was
also a feeling that after the expected annexation of Gurdaspur to Pakistan, the Maharaja of
Kashmir would have to join with Pakistan as his state would have no land contacts with India.
This was another unrealistic approach because on one side, Non-Muslim were in majority in
Tehsil Panthankot while the Muslim league had handed over a blank Cheque to Redcliff on the
other side. But a greater reality requires our attention towards an earlier statement of
Mountbatten who had signaled it clearly that a major portion of this area would be given to India,
He said while addressing a press conference on 4th June, 1947, The demarcation in Gurdaspur
would not be done in the usual manner. I believe that the ratio of Muslim and Non-Muslim
population in this District is 50.4% respectively. Obviously, the Boundary Commission cannot
hand over the whole district to Muslims just because of 0.6% difference in population.
(Reference No-25)
These statistics were distinctively different from those shown in the census of 1941. However,
the leadership of Muslim league neglected this clear signal of Mountbatten and kept nourishing
an unrealistic expectation.
4. Anti-Pakistan Policy Congress and Mountbatten and their mutual conspiracy
Every one is aware of the fact that Congress was deadly against the establishment of Pakistan
and the viewpoint of Muslim league. It had, unwillingly accepted the partition of the Sub-
13
Continent. So, its effort to harm Pakistans population and area was understandable and the
leadership of Congress never tried to conceal it. On the other side, many members of the British
Government were against the very concept of Pakistan. However., it was obligatory upon all
British officers and the Viceroy to play their role for the annexation of Muslim majority areas to
Pakistan after the decision of partition. The role played by Mount Batten, in this context was
unjust. Kapoorthala, was a state with Muslim population in majority but was being ruled by a
Sikh. It was the duty of Mountbatten to include this state in Pakistan even if its Sikh ruler had
announced otherwise but he had approved its annexation with India even before the declaration
of Redcliff Award, (Reference No-26)
In the same way, the statistics about the population of District Gurdaspur told by him on 4 th June,
1947 were contradictory from the census of 1941 and were obviously, in favor of Hindus. He
advised the Maharaja of Kashmir, at the time of his visit to Sri Nagar on 19 th June not to declare
independence rather to announce his states annexation with either of the two countries before
15th August. (Reference No-27)
The advice of Mountbatten was unjust too. Acording to the policy, he should have advised the
Maharaja to get Jammu and Laddakh annexed with India and rest of Kashmir with Pakistan. It
must be remembered here that Mountbatten had, very clearly advised the rulers of other states as
he had advised the rulers of Jodhpur, Jassedl Meer, Hyderabad and others to get their states
annexed with India as their geographical location required that. (Reference No-28)
The above facts make it clear that Mountbatten desired Kashmirs annexation with India.
However, if Muslim League and Muslim Conference had adopted clear, realistic, democratic and
principled stand based on Tow Nation Theory, no such conspiracy of Congress and Mountbatten
could have been materialized.
BLUNDERS OF PAKISTANI LEADERSHIP COMMITTED ON KASHMIR ISSUE AFTER

PARTITION
On several occasions after the partition, there was the possibility of the settlement of Kashmir
issue peacefully but these opportunities were not availed of. On the contrary, the Pakistan rulers
made the issue very complex through their steps.
14
1. The tribal attack on Kashmir
About five thousand tribesmen attacked Kashmir on 21 st October, 1947. Prior to that, the
Kashmiri freedom fighters, under the leadership of Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan had got a large
area of District Poonch liberated on 27th August. (Reference No-29)
The tribesmen were armed by the Pakistani Government and they reached Kashmir on army
trucks. Obviously, the arrangements, in this connection would have started some time prior to the
actions. On the other side the Pakistan government wanted to conceal it from the British officers
in the Pakistan army. At that time, the governor of N.W.F.P. Commander-in-Chief of Pakistan
army and several other officers were British. The tribal warriors were brave but disorganized and
possessed no war skills. For the same reason, there was no link between these groups and the
Kashmiri freedom fighters. Obviously, it could not have rained concealed from the British
officers. Hence, on 20th October, the governor of NWFP, Sir George Cunningham (who had been
appointed governor by the government of Pakistan) ordered to stop this attack and informed the
Commander-in-Chief of the India army as well. On 24 th October, India was informed about this
attack by the G.H.Q of Pakistan army as well and the Commander-in-Chief of Pakistan army,
General Gracy opposed it openly. (Reference No-30)
Under the pretext of this attack, Maharaja Hari Singh requested India for military assistance.
India laid the condition of Kashmirs annexation with it for military assistance. Consequently,
Indian army reached Sri Nagar through more than hundred aircrafts who controlled the situation.
Pakistan could simply gain a small part of Kashmir including Muzaffarabad through this attack
but had to lose the whole Jammu and Kashmir. The Maharaja signed the document of Kashmirs
annexation with India. (Reference No-31)
It was, obviously, a major setback.
In order to materialize any such attack into success, no responsible office should have been
occupied by any British officer. In the absence of any senior army official, even a colonel could
have worked as Commander-in-Chief but the appointment of a British officer should have been
avoided. It is strange that no Pakistani was considered suitable for the appointment as governor
of Frontier Province. Such an attack should have been launched under the command of army and
should have been planned in such a manner that all prominent places would be captured within
15
three or four days. It was quite possible at that time. The dogra Army was unable to resist and the
road to Pathankot was of no use. The India Army had reached Sari Nagar through air route six
days after the attack. If the success was not possible, the attack should not have launched because
it leveled the ground for Kashmirs annexation to India.
(11) The blunder of annexing Junagarh to Pakistan
Pakistan had made undesirable effort to get several such states annexed with it which had Hindu
population in majority and were being ruled by Hindus as well. These states included Jodhpur,
Jassel Meer and Trenkover, Muslim League wanted their annexation even at the cost of accepting
their undemocratic and tyrannical demands. Since, the public opinion in these states was alive
and Congress was alert, these efforts fell flat. However, Muslim League succeeded in getting
state of Junagarh annexed with Pakistan. This tiny state consisted of 0.7 people out of which
80% were Hindus. It was surrounded by India on three sides but had a small seaport, which had a
sea route to Pakistan. It was being ruled by a Muslim Nawab who announced the annexation to
Pakistan on 15th August, 1947 and the Pakistan Government accepted it. (Reference No-33)
It was a wrong decision I n every respect. It was against democracy, justice, reality and two
Nation Theories. The whole Hindu population of this state was against its annexation to Pakistan.
India could have captured it any time as Pakistan could not have resisted due to the non-
availability of Naval forces. The most dangerous aspect of this bargain was that Pakistan had to
accept any such announcement on moral grounds made by Maharaja Hari Singh.
The head of Joint Defense Council, Sir Akinlec made Quaid-e-Azam answerless by adopting
exactly the same stand. The detail of the matter is that Quaid-e-Azam ordered General Gracy to
send troops to Kashmir the same evening 27th October, 1947 when India Forces reached Sri
Nagar through transport planes (General Messervy was no leave at that time). General Gracy
expressed his inability to do so on account of two reasons. First that this action would bring
British officers on both side in clash with each other and so they would have to relinquish
responsibilities. Second that he would have to seek the permission of Sir Akinlec, the Supreme
Commander before such an action. (Sr Akinlec was the Chairman of the Join Defense Council of
both the counties).
16
Gracy gequested Akinlec to reach Lahore. He reached on the morning of 28 th October and met
Quaid-e-Azam. Akinlec argued Quaid-e-Azam that Maharaja Hari Singh was justified in his
stand as the same was done by the Nwab of Junagarh. Quaid-e-Azam got convinced and
withdrew his orders. (Reference No-34)
Another important and unforgettable part of this story is that India severed all of its trade links
with Junagarh which turned the sate bankrupt. The Hindu population of the state turned against
the Nawab. Nawab came to Pakistan along with all his wealth and an Army of 800pet dogs.
The state Council reconsidered the previous decision and announced the states annexation with
India in the first week of November. (Reference No-35)
(3) Pakistan refusal to accept Kashmir in return of Hyderabad Deccan
Hyderabad Deccan was a big state of Southern India which was being ruled by Nizam. 82% of
its population was Hindu. This state was surrounded by India on all the four sides. Nizam
announced independence at the time of partition. There is no example of the existence of any
such state in history that is surrounded by another country on all the four sides. A man with
average intelligence could tell that Hyderabad Deccan would have to annex itself with India
sooner or later. However, India was looking for some opportune movement. India proposed at the
very outset of partition that Pakistan take Kashmir in return to Hyderabad. Sardar patel the
deputy prime minister of India was most vocal fever of this suggestion that was obviously quite
reasonable. Sardar patel laid down this proposal before Prime Minister liaqat Ali Khan during
the session of joint Defense council is November, 1947.(Reference No-36)
Quaid-e-azam held consultation with Malik Feroz Khan noon on this issue. According to noon,
Quaid-e-azam was not in fever of this suggestion. (Reference No-37)
According to sardar Shaukat Hayat, Mountbatten came to Lahore in November, 1947 and
communicated the Indian proposal to the Pakistani leadership. It should be remembered here that
by this time Indian forces had occupied Kashmir and Pakistan had the control of Gilgit, Baltistan
and some part of pounch and Muzaffarabad . On this occasion, Liaqat Ali Khan said to sardar
Skaukat Hayat, Do you consider me crazy enough to accept a few mountains of Kashmir in
return to Hyderabad, a bigger stats then the province of Punjab? (Reference No-38)
17
It is a pity that Pakistan lost a good opportunity.
(4) Unconditional inclusion of Pakistan in Anglo-American block
Pakistan had its tilt towards west from the very the first day. This tilt was started with the Liaqat
Alis visit to America but Pakistan had started negotiations in this context in 1953 and entered
into several treaties with west and its allies. Pakistan entered into CENTO and Baghdad pact in
April, 1954. In May, 1954, Pakistan made Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement with America.
In September, 1954, Pakistan became a member of SEATO and in way joined NATO as will.
(Reference No-39)
All these treaties were Defense Pacts against Communism and the Western Block expected a
vital role of Pakistan in this context.
Pakistan could have talked in a decisive way with the western countries before entering these
treaties but she did not. Kashmir issue had no place in CEATO. CENTO and Baghdad pact. If
ever, any resolution had been passed, it was unmentionable. Pakistan had joined these pacts in
the hope of getting some armament enough to enable the country to get Kashmir liberated by
force. It was the height of simplicity. This is why, the Western countries announced clearly
during the indo-Pakistan war of 1965 that these pacts were simply against communist military
aggression. Pakistan suffered from three major setbacks due to these pacts. First, Nehru backed
out from the promise of holding plebiscite in Kashmir under the pretext of these pacts. He
pleaded that these pacts had changed the whole scenario. Second, Russia became an enemy of
Pakistan and sided with India absolutely. Third, Western countries started developing their
working relationship with India as they were satisfied from Pakistans side.
(5) The blunder of not benefiting from Indo-China war
The best possible opportunity had arisen at the time of Indo-China war in October, 1962, if by all
means this issue had to be resolved through power. Pakistan could have availed of opportunity as
Indian armed forces were having serious at the hands of China but field Martial Ayub Khan, the
then president of Pakistan did noting.
18
(6) 1965 war and the Tashkent Agreement
The war of 1965 was not an opportune attempt. The insertion of gorillas in Kashmir and attack
on Kashmir after their failure was a mistake especially when Pakistan just had ammunition for
seventeen days fight. It was a misconception that India would not cross international borders.
General Musa Khan and some other analysts have discussed this matter in detail. (Reference No-
40)
This war was a source of serious economic setback for Pakistan but the Tashkent agreement
proved to be the greater loss for Pakistan as it sent Kashmir issue in the background.
(7) Bhuttos blunder before Simla Agreement.
We have solid reasons to believe that Bhutto and Indira Gandhi had decided verbally, at the time
of Simla agreement to send issue of Kashmir in the realm of forgetfulness because Pakistan
never touched this issue on any forum during the next several years. Bhutto, at that time was
facxing the issue of the release of 93,000 POWs and the might have found himself weaker at
that moment. However, it was laid down in the document of agreement that both the countries
would resolve these disputes through negotiations at some proper time. In other words Pakistan
admitted that the Kashmir issue would not be discussed on any international Forum. Secondly,
the ceasefire line was transformed into line of control whereas India had occupied a large
territory of Kashmir in 1971 war. Pakistan did win some of the land as well but the Indian
occupied territory was strategically more important. However, Bhutto committed a blunder by
releasing Sheikh Mujeeb-ur-Rehman and sending him to Bangladesh. If this release had been
made conditional with the release of military and civilian prisoners of war on both sides, Bhutto
would not have found himself forced to accept the demands of India in Simla.
(8) Misplanning of General Zia on Kashmir and the Siachin Issue
General Zia-ul-Haq kept on postponing all other issues after having indulged in afghan war. It
was a wrong policy. America and other Western forces needed Pakistan but General Zia did no
gain anything in terms of Kshmir, economy and other issues even in the favorable circumstances.
Meanwhile, India occupied Siachin Glacier in 1984. General Zia could have announced the
19
annulment of Sima agreement on this ground and could have taken the matter to U.N.O. but he
remained silent on the diplomatic level.
(9) in the part of Kashmir liberated from India, a worst system was introduced. According to
this system, Pakistans ministry of Kashmir affairs had all powers and the Kashmiri rulers were
appointed and fired at their direction. No elections were held in AJK during the next 25 years.
Muslim Conference and its various groups kept on starving to gain power. The political system
of AJK cold never has inculcated any feelings of liking in the hearts of the inhabitants of the
Indian occupied Kashmir. (Reference No-41)
The very first elections were held in AJK during Bhutto regime after having formed peoples
Party over there. Peoples Party won those elections in an engineered way. The real free and
impartial elections in AJK were held in July 2001.
THE DECEITFUL, UNDEMORATIC & TYRANNICAL ATTITUDE OF INDIA AFTER

PARTITION
Congress and the Indian government had the stand from the beginning that the people of all
states should be consulted whether they wanted to join Pakistan or India. It was a just and
democratic stand. This is why there was just a nominal protest when the states with Hindu
majority population joined India. However, the situation of Kashmir was different. This state had
77% of Muslim population and Muslims were in great majority in all areas except Jammu and
Laddakh. On 27th October, 1947, when India Forces landed at Sri Nagar airport, India declared
immediately that the public opinion would be sought after the normalization of circumstances.
(Reference No-42)
Nehru revived this promise on 31st October, 1947 and announced that he had promised it with
Kashmir, Pakistan and the whole world and that it would be materialized. (Reference No-43)
This promise was revived time to time after that. India clearly, wrote in the white Paper printed
on Hyderabad on 10th August, 1948 The India government firmly believes hat the masses of the
states have the right of self-determination after the British rule is over and that it is essential to
create such conditions that they can use their right freely. (Reference No-44)
20
Nehru reaffirmed this policy during a public meeting on 6th July, 1951. (Reference No45)
On 20th August, 1953, India and Pakistan decided through a mutual agreement that in charge for
the plebiscite would be appointed by the end of April, 1954. (Reference No-46)
Later, when Pakistan became a member of Baghdad Pact, CEATO and CENTO, Nehru
announced that the changed scenario did not require any plebiscite al all. (Reference No-47)
Nehrus stand in this context was also wrong and unprincipled. How could Kashmiri people be
kept deprived of their basic human rights under the pretext of these agreements?
After that India started making lame excuses to avoid plebiscite. Not only this, India also
continued with its undemocratic and dictatorial policies. According to all impartial analysts, all
elections held in India occupied Kashmir other than those held in 1977, were a force. Even in
1977, the parties favorite to the government of India were allowed to participate in elections and
most of the candidates got elected unopposed. (Reference No-48)
According to Indian governments own claim, the turnout in these elections had not been more
than 10% while the factual ratio was not more than 2% to 4%. It is also acknowledged by all
impartial analysts. For example in the first elections of the state legislative assembly in Autumn,
1951, National Conference bagged 73 seats out of 75 and all of them were unopposed as the
papers of their opponents were rejected. All analysts declared them a force. (Reference No-49)
In the next election of 1957, the candidates of National Conference stood elected unopposed at
35 seats out of 43 in the Kashmir valley. The elections of 1962 were not a different story.
(Reference No-50)
The elections of 1967 reflected the same. Through rigging, Congress won 59 seats and National
Conference bagged 8 seats. (Reference No-51)
21
The general hold on the opponents was normal practice. In the elections of March, 1972
Congress was awarded 57 seats out of 75 (Reference No-52)
Quite interestingly, all members of the assembly were at the mercy of Indian Government to such
an extent that mirza Afzal Beg and Sheikh Abdullah were made elected as members in February,
1975 and appointed as Chief Minister without joining of Congress Party. (Reference No-53)
Several analysts including Prem Nath Bazaz did not consider the elections of June, July, 1977 as
fair but some impartial analysts declared them just and fair. In this election, National Conference
won 47 seats, Janata Party 13, Congress 11, Janata Singh 3, Jammat-i-Islami 1 and the rest of
seats went to the independent candidates. National Conference won 40 seats out of 42 allocated
for the valley. (Reference No-54)
National Conference won 40 seats while Congress won 26 seats in the elections of 1983.
Congress won all its seats from Jammu. The results of the elections held in 1987 were almost the
same. These elections were also unfair and controlled like past. (Reference No-55)
The majority of the Muslims of the valley boycotted all elections held even after that. In the
election of 1998. When the overall turn out in most of the India states was more than 50% the
votes polled in Kashmir were not more than 10% according to Indian government itself whereas
the real figures where far less than that.
Hence, the electoral results of the valley of Kashmir during the past fifty years prove that the
Muslims of this area never considered themselves a part of India.
It is worth remembering here that some eminent researchers like professor Alastair Lamb raised
the question whether the Maharaja had really signed any Document of Annexation on 26th
October, 1948or the India Forces had landed at Sri Nagar even before that. In this context, the
statements of V.P Singh and Mr. Mahajan, the ex-Prime Minister of Kashmir are contradictory to
each other. Stanley Walport has pointed out towards this issue. It is also important to note that
India has never revealed the document of annexation (Reference No-56)
22
It shows that India had adopted the policy of fraud, betrayal and expansionism for Kashmir.
KASHMIR ISSUE AND U.N.O
India lodged a complaint against Pakistan in U.N.O on January 1 st, 1948. The following
resolutions were passed afterwards:
1. 17-01-1948: Security Council resolution No. S/651

5. 13-08-1948: U.Ns commission on Pakistan and Indias No. S/1100-para 75.
6. 05-01-1949: U.Ns commission on Pakistan and Indias resolution No. S/1196 Para 51
7. 14-03-1950: Security Council resolution No. S/1469.
8. 30-03-1950: Security Council resolution No. S/2017/Rev.1
11. 21-02-1957: Security Council resolution No.3793
13. 04-09-1965: Security Council resolution No. S/209-1965
14. 06-09-1965: Security Council resolution No. 210-1965
It seems proper here to refresh the important points of all these resolutions. There solution of
17th January, 1948 was an appeal to Pakistan and India for adopting a policy of tolerance. A three
member was approved to be constituted as per resolution passed on 20 th January, 1948. One
member was to be taken from U.N.O. This commission was entrusted with the duties of finding
out truth and leveling the ground for mediation.
The resolution of 21st April was important and detailed. This resolution was, apparently in favor
of Pakistan whereas it practically favored India. It seemed in favor of Pakistan on the surface
because it was expressed that both the countries are in favor of a fair, free and impartial
plebiscite in Kashmir.
23
It practically favored India because it asked Pakistan to withdraw all militant groups including
the tribesmen from Kashmir. India was asked to make plan to reduce the number of its troopers
up to a limit necessary to maintain law and order after the evacuation of all Pakistanis and
tribesmen (mean when the India occupation of whole Kashmir is complete). India was asked to
advance towards its task with the consultation of the In charge of Plebiscite, the state
administration and the commission constituted by the
Security Council.
In fact, Pakistan was made bound to evacuate all of its citizens from Kashmir and hand over the
whole territory to India. India had to cut down the size of her forces in Kashmir gradually but not
below a certain level. The less size was not explained in the resolution. Hence, it was the
discretion of India to maintain the size of its forces in Kashmir.
Has Pakistan acted upon this resolution, it would have to surrender AJK, Gilgit and Baltistan as
well.
The resolution of 3rd June, 1948 asked the U.Ns Commission on Pakistan and India to start its
work with immediate effect and submit its report to the Security Council in time.
The resolution of 13th August, 1948 passed by the U.N Commission on Pakistan and India
was practically against. This resolution had three parts. The first part asked both the counties to
put an end to war with immediate effect. The second part was compried of the peace terms. This
part had further three sections. The first section A was about Pakistan. It said that the Pakistans
acknowledging of the presence of its forces in Kashmir has brought a physical change in the
situation of the state. (It must be remembered that Pakistan admitted the presence of its forces in
Kashmir for the first time on 15th June, 1948. Although this process had begun in October, 1947,
it took a speedy turn after December, 1947. After Lord Bavins assumption of the charge of the
foreign Minister in the Labour Government of Britain and due to this favor, Pakistans
Commander-in-Chief Sir Douglas Gracy approved of the insertion of Pakistan forces in
Kashmir). (Reference No-57) Thus Pakistan should withdraw its forces, tribesmen and other
citizens from Kashmir immediately. The areas vacated by Pakistan would be run by the local
authority under the supervision of U.N commission.
24
The section B declared that the major part of Indian army will leave Kashmir gradually after
the commission had announced that all militant tribesmen and Pakistanis had been back home.
However, India would keep a limited number of forces in Kashmir in order to maintain law and
order and the India Government would give assurance of law and order and human rights to be
protected by the government of the State (under its control).
The section C expressed that the agreement between the two countries would be announced
after their approval.
In the third part of the resolution, bot countries refreshed their desire to settle the Kashmir
dispute according to the wihes of the Kashmiri people.
Along with the above mentioned motion, the commission passed another Resolution of
Assurancewhich declared India as responsible for the security of Jammu and Kashmir. It meant
that India was the dustodian of Kashmir till the last decision. The government of Jammu and
Kashmir would rule over the whole state. The so-called AJK would not be acknowledged. The
northern areas vacated by Pakistan army would be given to India who would be allowed to keep
her forces there in order to stop the invasion of the tribesmen and to keep the trade routes open.
Pakistan would be kept away from the proceedings of the plebiscite if it takes place. If the
plebiscite is not possible on technical or practical grounds, the commission would consider the
alternative ways to know the public opinion. The plebiscite would not be considered necessary if
Pakistan did not act upon the resolution of 13th August, 1948 (by withdrawing its forces from
AJK and the northern areas).
The above mentioned resolution was deadly against the principles of justice and was contrary to
the interest of Pakistan. This is why, Pakistan, refused to accept it whereas India accepted it with
immediate effect. Pakistan would have to surrender AJK, Giligit and Baltistan in case, it had
accepted this resolution.
The commission passed another resolution in December 1948. However, this resolution was
dated as 5th January, 1949 because the Security Council had formally approved it on the same
date. It was also not in the interest of Pakistan. It said that the plebiscite would take into effect
after the terms for peace were fulfilled and the administration for plebiscite would be appointed
by the state Jammu and Kashmir (in fact, India). When the resolution August, 1948 would be
25
enacted (means when Pakistani troops would evacuate Kashmir), the administrator for plebiscite
would decide about the with drawl of Indian forces from Kashmir with the consultation of India
government. However, the matters like the defense of the state and fee plebiscite would be kept
in consideration the local force in the part of Kashmir not under Indias control would be
eliminated under the supervision of the administrator Plebiscite with the consultation of the local
authority.
According to this resolution, Pakistan and India were asked to stop war one minute before 1 st
January 1949. Both the countries accepted this resolution and ceasefire took place on 1st January.
Like the resolution of 13th August, this resolution was practically contrary to Pakistans interest
because it also asked for the withdrawal of Pakistani forces from Kashmir before the evacuation
of the area by India troops if India had occupied the whole territory after the withdrawal of
Pakistani forces, the whole affairs would have gone to winds. However, Pakistan accepted this
resolution and consequently the ceasefire at a moment when it was having successive victories
on different war fronts. This golden opportunity was missed by Pakistan itself. (Reference No-
58)
Security Council passed the nest resolution on 14 th March, 1950. This resolution was
comparatively more just. It asked both the countries to with draw their forces within five months
according to the plan of General Mc Nogton so as to ensure no further treat on both sides of the
line of Control. According to this resolution, the Five-member Commission was dissolved and
one member Commission was constituted instead who was authorized to make any sort of
mediation and interpretation of the agreement. This resolution was adopted by both the countries.
According to this resolution, Sir Owen Dixon, an Australian Judge was designated who proposed
several plans about the plebiscite. He finally proposed that the plebiscite should only be
conducted in the Valley and rest of the territory of the state should be divided in both the counties
without plebiscite. At last, he submitted his report as failure to the Security Council on 23 rd
August, 1950. The Security Council passed another resolution on 30the March, 1951 which was
just but weak. This resolution criticized the stand of All Jammu and Kashmir National
Conference about the establishment of legislative assembly in the state and affirmed that the
decision of such an assembly would not be valid rather the future of the state could only be
determined by a fair and free plebiscite.
26
The resolution also asked for the appointment of a reprehensive of U.N.O who would schedule
withdrawal of both the forces in consultation with Pakistan and India within three months and
would submit his report to the U.N in case of failure. If such a situation arises, both the countries
had to appoint one or more persons of remediation and get their appointment verified by the
International Court of Justice. This resolution was turned down by India. It was a weak
resolution as every decision hand to be verified by both the countries. Sir Fran P Grahm, the
representative of U.N negotiated with both the countries for two years but no avail.
On 23rd December. 1952, another resolution was passed by the Security Council. It was, in fact
based on the report prepared by Sir Grahm. This resolution said that since India and Pakistan
could not agree on the schedule fore the withdrawal of forces, the Security Council emphasize
upon both the countries to negotiate with each other. It was proposed that Pakistan should keep
its forces in the part of Kashmir held by it from 3000 to 6000 whereas India would keep from
12000 to 18000 troopers on its side. Both the countries were asked to inform about the approval
of the resolution with in one month.
As it is explicit through the wording that it was merely a resolution of consultative nature which
had no utility.
On 24th January, 1957, Security Council said through a resolution that any decision taken by the
legislative assembly of the India held Kashmir would not affect future of Kashmir and that its
future can only be determined through a free and fair plebiscite.
On 21st February, 1957 the Security Council asked its president, through a resolution No.3793 to
submit some useful suggestions about this issue by 15 th of April. Both the countries were
requested to co-operate with the President of the Security Council.
It was evident from the wording of this resolution that the Security Council had indirectly
expressed its helplessness and despair on this issue.
On 2nd December, 1957 the Security Council passed another resolution No S-3922 which was, in
fact the last resolution in this context. We come to know through this resolution that the Council
was unable to play any further positive role in this context. Both the countries were asked to
27
avoid any such activity that might pollute the atmosphere. It showed that the Council had no new
proposal to tender nor it was in a position to take some decision; it could just make a nominal
request to both the countries.
The next five resolutions of the Security Council were related to the Indo-Pak of 1965. The
resolution of 4th September urged upon both the countries to respect the ceasefire line. Rest of all
four resolutions did not even touch the Kashmir issue. It was the obvious failure of Pakistan.
THE USE OF VETO POWER BY RUSSIA
The rulers of Pakistan, immediately after the establishment of the country tried to associate
themselves with the Western Camp. Resultantly, Pakistan was being considered and ally of the
West in a short time. India, on the contrary, adopted a policy of impartially but had a tilt towards
Russia. This situation developed annoyance among Russia against Pakistan and she always sided
with India every matter. On the other side, West maintained the status of friend for Pakistan but
tried to develop relations with India acknowledging its importance. Therefore, Russia supported
India openly on the Kashmir issue whereas West proved to be a weak prop for Pakistan. Russia
always abstained from voting in all the resolutions f Security Council on Kashmir. In December,
1955 the Soviet Prime Minister Martial Balganen and the General Secretary of the Communist
party Khruschev visited Sari Nager. Both of them declared Kashmir a part of India. Then named
Pakistan an artificial country which was formed against the interest of the sub-Continent.
(Reference No. 59)
Russia used its Veto power on Kashmir issue for the first time on 18 th February, 1957. On 14th
February, Britain, U.S.A, Cuba and Australia proposed a joint resolution. They had requested the
President of the Security Council to take measures in order to get the withdrawal of forces and
other terms enacted for the settlement of this issue. The temporary role of the U.N forces was
also suggested.
Since India considered the use of U.N forces against her interest, Russia vetoed this resolution
(Reference No.60). It means that all that was close to justice was rejected on the forum of the
Security Council. After that weak resolution was passed in the Security Council in order to avoid
the Russian Veto. This resolution was accepted on 2 nd December, 1957 which requested both the
28
countries to avoid any step which might aggravate the situation. It was the last resolution on
Kashmir passed by the Security Council which proved helplessness of U.N this matter.
The following facts come to the surface through the above discussion.
Most of the U.N resolutions propose Plebiscite in Kashmir but the practical procedure
suggested is harmful for Pakistan. The resolution No-2883 of 23 rd December, 1952 is
comparatively just.
All U.N resolutions were mere recommendations which could be turned down by either
party. It was not obligatory upon any side to follow them this is why these resolutions
were mostly rejected by one side or by both sides.
The last resolution of the Security Council does not even touch the Kashmir issue.
The Kashmir issue has not been included in any Security Council agenda. If never it
happens, Russia would Veto it. Proves that U.N is unable to play any role in this matter in
future.
The countries having friendly relations with Pakistan are not willingly to go beyond an
extent in its favor.
Hence it is better for Pakistan to find out alternative means instead of looking towards
U.N for the settlement of this issue.
AUGUST 1988-THE ONSET OF RESISTANCE Movement & THE

SITUATION AFTERWARDS
29
The first armed operation against the Indian forces took place on 20 th August, 1988 in Sri Nagar
(Reference No-61)
Since then, the armed struggle is in progress against India. This movement has claimed the lives
of 40000 to 80000 Kashmiris and other Muslims so far. More than 10000 Indian Soldiers have
also been stricken to death during the same period. About 700000 Indian soldiers are present in
the valley of Kashmir and other areas of disturbance at the moment. It is not difficult to realize
the number of casualties and the loss of honor and property. Some noteworthy analytical aspects
of this struggle are as under.
About 15 big and more than 50 small organizations are engaged in this armed struggle. Although
they keep themselves linked with each other through loose ties, a situation of conflict is evident
among militant organizations in such a large number.
Some organizations merely have difference on the issue of leadership while some of them have
ideological differences. (Reference No-63). Some organizations have been formed strictly on
their sectarian grounds and keep propagating their creed and negating those besides the armed
struggle. The monthly journal Al-Dawah of a prominent organization Lashkar-i-Tayyaba
reflects the same.
A large number of Kashmir are part of this struggle but some Pakistani youth have also joined
them. Several jehadi organizations have their offices in Pakistan which recruit the youth for
their mission. We read through the newspaper every other day about the martyrdom of such
people. India accuses I.S.I of sponsoring these organizations, providing arms and training and
smuggling them across the border. Pakistan refutes the blame but the rest of the world generally
believes in what India says.
THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE INFLUENCES OF THIS

STRUGGLE IN TERMS OF PAKISTAN AND KASHMIR
The positive influence of this movement, in terms of Kashmir and Pakistan is that the Kashmir
issue has attracted the world attention once again after a period of almost two decades. The world
30
has realized the resentment of the Kashmiri Muslims on the prevailing situation and that the
normalization of the circumstances is not possible without the settlement of this issue.
The negative effect cast by this movement is that the world believes that such organizations
cannot survive without the warm patronage of Pakistan. So Pakistan is being blamed for
violating international treaties and promoting terrorism through these organizations instead of
seeking for a peaceful solution to this problem.
LAHORE ACCORD, KARGIL WAR AND WASHINGTON PACT
We know that both major parties of Pakistan i.e. Muslim league and people party want an
early solution to this problem. Unofficially, they support a solution that may render autonomy to
Kashmiri Muslims within India. Four more political groups namely ANP, MQM, nationalist
leaders of Baluchistan and JUI (F) are also ready to accept some sort of similar solution.
However, an ideological group of Muslim league, jamaat-e-isalmi, Army and some important
religious leaders deem the settlement of this issue possible only through plebiscite in whole
Kashmir (including the Muslim majority areas of jammu and laddakh) and its consequent
annexation to Pakistan.
This is why the Kashmir issue was kept in a low profile during the visit of Rajeev Gandhi to
Pakistan during the regime of Benazir Bhutto in July, 1989. After that, there are two
contradictory informations about the scenario arisen as a result of the Wajpaees visit to Pakistan
in February, 1999 on that invitation of Nawaz Sharif and the Lahore accord signed on that
occasion. The close circles of Mian Nawaz Sharif express that there was a consensus on the
decision that the valley of Kashmir (including Jammu and Laddakh) would be granted absolutely
autonomy with its own flag, currency and prime minister. The only dispute was over the defense
and foreign policies of the valley. It was decided that these two issues would also be resolved
within one more year and the whole process would take place through silent diplomacy till the
last moment.
On the contrary, another quarter is of the opinion that there had never been such a development.
Main Nawaz Sharif was not interested in raising this issue. This is why there was almost dead
31
wording in the first draft of Lahore accord, which was changed on the insistence of the army
Chief.
The truth would only be determined in future.
After that, the Kargil War took place in May, 1999. There are three different points of view about
this war as well. The first point of view is that this plan was prepared without the consultation of
the political government by the powerful establishment, which disagreed with Lahore accord.
According to this plan, the occupation of that whole territory in Kargil was to be reconquered
which was occupied by India in 1971 war and then was agreed upon to be kept in the custody of
India through Simla Accord. Therefore, Pakistani Army crossed the Line of Control and captured
the posts vacant due to the cold weather and snowfall. The political leadership was simply
informed that the army was having its exercises within its own territory near the Line of Control.
The Indian Prime Minister informed his Pakistani counterpart about the situation in the first
week of May. At this moment, the Pakistani Prime Minister came to know for the first time that
Pak Army had crossed the Line of Control but nothing was possible now. When the world
attention was focused on this war and it became difficult for Pakistan to supply weaponry and
other things to these posts due to the pictures taken by American Satellite, the leadership of
Armed forces requested the Prime Minister to seek the mediation of President Clinton for
ceasefire and get the assurance that India would not attack Pak Army during ret4reat. Hence,
Nawaz Sharif had to visit Washington and secured the peaceful retreat of Pak Army on the
promise of regarding the sanctity of Line of Control.
On the contrary, the second point of view is that Nawaz Sharif was taken into confidence about
this operation from the very first day. The prime Minister visited Washington at his own will.
Army continuously followed the course laid down by the political government.
The third point of view is that this operation was undertaken by the Mujahideen and that Pak
Army was not involved at all. When Nawaz Sharif requested the Mujahid organizations to vacate
those posts, they cam down. This point of view can be easily refuted because Pakistan soldiers in
a large number embraced martyrdom and many of them were awarded with medals.
32
The near future might decide which of the first two points of view are true. However, the
external world generally believes the first one to be true and extends several testimonies in its
favor.
The Kargal war accorded a lot of benefit to India and a loss to Pakistan. There was a unified and
warm support for the Government within India whereas Pakistan was declare an unreliable
country which does not keep its words. The friendly countries like China and Saudi Arabia also
showed their resentment on this operation. Pakistan remained in loss from the defense point of
view as well as India control over these areas was strengthened after. That.
Washington Accord also presented the picture of Pakistan as a weak country and a hanger on
America. India was physically absent from this accord. The Pakistani Prime Minister had no
need to visit Washington jut for such an accord. He could have held this dialogue with the
American President and the Prime Minister of India securing the sage retreat of Pak Army
because such a retreat was in the own interest of India.
SOME NOTEWORTHY FACTS UNDER PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES
It seems proper that we discuss here the prevailing circumstances of the world, the
situation of Sub-Continent and the new factors developed in Kashmir.
Indian held Kashmir is completely divided into religious groups. Muslims are, on the
whole, against India while Non-Muslims favor India. Most of Non-Muslims have
migrated from the valley of Kashmir to Jammu or India. Main Muslim population lives in
the valley thought Muslims, in large number are also inhabited in District Kargil and
some other areas. Hindus have decisive majority in Jammu at the moment. The followers
of Buddhism are in majority in Laddakh. Hindus and Buddhists are totally with India.
(Reference No.64)
It is impossible for India to accept complete separation of Kashmir or any of its parts.
One of the reason is that various separatist movements are working within India. The
separation of Kashmir would inspire them and there would be a risk of the
dismemberment of India. It is obvious that no state can take such a decision deliberately.
33
The second reason is that this action needs amendment in the Indian Constitution, which
is possible only through two third majority. It means that a consensus among all big
political parties in India should materialize it which seems impossible due to the
polarization Indian politics.
It is out question for Pakistan as well to accept the situation as such. Pakistan has offered
sacrifices over a period of fifty years for Kashmiri Muslims. Hence, it is impossible for
Pakistan to accept the prevailing situation.
This issue has harmed both the states a lot but Pakistan has suffered greater loss
comparatively. The instability of democracy, the yoke of internal and external debts, lack
of improvement in the fields of education and health, spending of the lions share of
Pakistani budget on defense and several other similar problems of Pakistan are mainly
due to the issue of Kashmir. India, being a bigger country has been able to absorb these
shocks thought it has also suffered a lot.
At the moment, it is in the interest of the big power of the world to resolve this issue
because a war between these two newly emerged Nuclear Powers might produce
disastrous results. However, neither of these big countries is in a position to impose some
solution on both the countries.
War is not in the interest of both the countries Pakistan possesses conventional weaponry
to sustain a war maximum to forty days while India can fight till seventy days. It is
obvious that both the countries would be forced to agree on ceasefire just a few weeks
after the commencement of war. Both the countries would not like to use nuclear
weapons because it would destroy them alike. Whatever is left would be occupied by the
big powers and hence the whole sub-continent would go to ashes.
India has a defense Agreement with Russia but no country is backing up Pakistan at the
moment on Kashmir issue. Muslim countries support Pakistan halfheartedly while they
have warmer trade links with India. China has its own limitations and cannot support
Pakistan beyond certain limits. This is why if could not help Pakistan practically in the
wars of 1965, 1971, Kargil Siachin.
34
Pakistan and India are both important for U.S.A. India has a big market and has closer
cultural values to U.S but Pakistan is also unavoidable for America because it is an
important country of the region and the whole Muslim world. Therefore, it is clear that
U.S would always adopt a policy of understanding on Kashmir.
India has been successfully trying to paint the freedom movement in Kashmir as
terrorism. The world generally considers Pakistan responsible for its patronage. India
accuses Pakistan of violating the international treaties. China has its own concerns about
the militant activities in sinkiang. The establishment of Shinghai-V is due to the same
reason.
The armed movement in Kashmir is affecting Pakistan too. The Kalashnikov culture is
becoming a fashion around. Sectarianism is on increase. The use of gun. Instead of
argument is a common practice.
Can this armed struggle in Kashmir sustain for an indefinite period if the status quo
prevails? It is not easy to answer this question. What would be the magnitude of
international pressure on Pakistan in future? Are India and mujahidin trying to exhaust
each other? If Sri Lanka and Tamils, Sudan and the Christians in its south and Turkey
and Kurd separatists are still not exhausted, who would lose stamina in this region? Will
India not benefit itself by strengthening its integrity making it in issue of national pride as
it did in Kargil War?
Pakistan is a blessing for us. However, every blessing has some side effects too. Almost
three hundred million of Pakistan and Bangladesh got freedom as a result of partition but
almost one hundred and eighty million Muslims are living as a minority in India
consequently. These Muslims of India are weak and helpless in various ways. The
Muslims of Pakistan must be grateful for the blessing of freedom they have been
bestowed upon. One way of showing gratitude is to devise our policies so as to boost the
morale of Indian Muslims and the defuse the situation of hatred between them and the
non-Muslims of India. They may live in peace and we should help them in leading their
lives according to a Muslim Culture.
35
It is obvious that the polarization the two countries and the feeling of hatred in Pakistan
for India aggravate the situation for Indian Muslims. They cannot move to any other
place with this magnitude of population, therefore they blame Pakistan for all their
discomforts. The extremist elements in elements in India have gained power during the
same period when militant activities in Kashmir have been in progress.
Unlike this, the normalization of the situation makes life easier for the Indian Muslims.
Hence, it is our obligation to grant convenience to them. We must remember that a
greater number of Muslims than that of Pakistan are still paying the price for the freedom
that we acquired. Therefore, only our peaceful policies in Kashmir may redress their
sufferings.
The number of political freedom movement in Kashmir exceeds the figure of 30 and they
are linked together through a loose alliance name Al-Parties Hurriyat Conference. They
are not ready to accept the leadership of any one party and the leadership of this alliance
keeps changing over year. Such manners do not suit a freedom seeker nation. Unity is the
basic principle for any movement for liberation without which it is not possible even to
think of freedom. The unity of all Muslims of Sub-Continent under the leaderships of
Quaid-e-Azam enabled us to hervest freedom. Same was the situation of all Non-
Muslims who assembled under the leadership of Gandhi. The success of the movements
in Iran, South Africa and Bosnia under the leadership of Imam Khomeini, Nelson
Mandela and Alija Izzet Begovich respectively is not a story of distant past. These
struggles met with success through the adoption of sublime moral principles.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A POSSIBLE & A JUST SOLUTION OF KASHMIR ISSUE
Every nation and every territory has an undeniable right to survive. It is an established fact in the
world conscience. Hence, the Kashmiri too, have their right of self-determination. It is clear
through the above analysis that the whole territory of Kashmir is no more one unit. Including
Laddakh and Jammu all Non-Muslim majority districts remain attached with India while the
people of the Muslim District of Kargil do not want to be with India. Hence, it is a principled
stand that the masses of the Valley and other Muslim majority areas should be asked through
plebiscite if they want to live with India or Pakistan or want a separate homeland for themselves.
Their decision must be accepted as such.
36
The prevailing circumstances do not allow this principled and just solution. Both the countries
will not accept it. India deems it the beginning of its dismemberment and Pakistan is not ready to
accept a separate Kashmiri state. Therefore, there is a need for such a possible, practicable and
realistic solution, which must be acceptable to both the countries, which should make the
condition of Kashmiri Muslims better, which should be closer to the principles of Justice and
which should not hurt national prestige of both the countries.
MUSHARRAF-WAJPAEE MEETING AND THE FUTURE FATH
The indo-Pak relations once again went to their lowest ebb after the Kargil war and Pervez
Musharrafs assuming the charge of the country in October 1999. However, Musharraf-Wajpaee
agra meeting in July 2001 has given birth to a new situation. It is generally assumed that this
meeting has been due to American efforts. If it is so, it a positive omen. Although this meeting
could not result in a joint declaration, the meeting itself is a remarkable progress. At the moment,
we are unaware of the real contents of the one to one discussion. We dont know whether both
the leaders discussed any formula on Kashmir. This three day meeting had several positive
aspects but Pakistan could not show its grip on two matters. First that Pakistan over resented on
the statement issued by Indian minister of state for information on the first day. Second that the
meeting of pevez musharraf with Indian press on breakfast should not have been telecast live. It
was not proper at all. Such meeting are always held in an atmosphere of trust and they are
generally considered off-the-record; they must not be used to score Pointe.
At the end of Agra summit, both the foreign ministers, very wisely declared the talks incomplete
but not unsuccessful. However, the press conference of President Musharraf, a few days after
that was quite unnecessary. It was proper for him to remain silent. Any statement issued by
Wajpaee could have been answered property through the spokesman.
Apparently, there are two main reasons for the non-issuance of a joint declaration. First,
Musharraf kept on insisting that Kashmir should be acknowledged as the primary dispute while
India considered it one of several disputes. Second, India wanted cross-border terrorism to be
mentioned in the declaration but Pakistan did not believe that any such thing ever existed.
If it was just a disagreement over the proper wording of the declaration, it is understandable
otherwise these two reasons should not have obstructed the substantive advancement. For
37
example, it is not important whether Kashmir is the primary dispute; the real thing is to pay full
attention to the solution of this problem. It is essential that some proposals come from certain
quarter in order to initiate the dialogue. So far as the cross-border terrorism in Indias is
concerned, it is directly linked with Kashmir. The acts of terrorism that take place in the far and
wide of Pakistan through bomb blasts and claimed by Pakistan as acts supervised by Indian
Agencies are also connected with Kashmir. Hence, both these issues can be discussed at the same
time.
It is necessary that both the heads meet each other on every opportune occasion and these
meetings should not be less than three or four times a year. The joint declaration may not be
issued. Obviously, the proper wording to express some dispute is not easy especially when the
matters are yet to resolve.
It is essential that no complaining statements are issued at the public level and the general
statements should also be worded gracefully and carefully. Both the countries must from working
groups to discuss dispute issues which should hold their sessions periodically. The one sided
issues should also be discussed by the working groups. The dispute once settled, should be
transformed into agreement and every issue should not be linked with Kashmir issue. It would
bean advantageous step as both the parties would focus their attention on this issue, which would
be the only issue in the end.
The only road that leads to the solution of Kashmir issue passes through tolerance, dialogue and
consensus among Kashmiri Muslims on non-violence. Every other way might strike both the
countries with annihilation.
REFERENCES
In terms of figures the main basis has been on colliers Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica,
and the tendency of population growth in this area.
About the history of Kashmir please refer to, History of Struggle for freedom in Kashmir,
Kashmir publishing Company, New Delhi by Premnath Bazaz
38
The story of the integration of the Indian states Orient Longmans Calcutta by Menon.
Kashmir: A study in India-Pakistan Relations Asia Publishing Hous Bombay by Sisir Gupta
Kashmir The University of the Punjab Lahore, By Mohi-ud-din Sufi
Pakistan Ki Siasi Tareekh Vol-3 (Indara Mutalaa Tareekh. Temple Road, Lahore By Zahid
Chaudhary)
3 The Emergence of Pakistan (Research Society of Pakistan Lahore. Page 227 by Chaudhary
Muhammad Ali)
4 Pakistan, The Consolidation of a Nation (Columbia University. New York 1963 page-47 by
Wine Ayres Wilcose)
5: The Transfer of Peshawar 1942-1947 (editor-in-chief Nicholas Mansergh. Her Majestys

Stationary office London 1982, Voume-11, Page 322-323
6: The Pakistan times. July 19, 1947
7: The Pakistan Times- July 11, 1947
8: Daily Dawn Karachi-May 11,1947
9: Daily Dawn Karachi-July 5, 1947
10: The Pakistan times -Lahore July 11, 1947

39
11: The Pakistan times-Lahore, July 18, 1947
12. Kashmir: A study in India-Pakistan Relations page-77 (Asia Publishing House Bombay by
Sistir Gupta.
13. Kashmir Ki Jang-i-Azadi, Page-55 (Classic Publishers by Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim

Khan.
Free Kashmir Page-173 (Central printing Karachi 1970 by Aman-ullah khan
Pakistan Ki Siasi Tareekh vol-3, page, 148-149 by Zahid Choudhari
14. Jinnah of Pakistan (By Stanley Walport Oxford University Press 1993, page 332)
Mission with Mountbatten By allen Campbell Johsom page-124 Robert Hale Ltd. London)
15:Pakistan ke Siasi Tareekh (Vol-12, page :446 By Zahid Chaudhary Idara Mutalae Tareekh)
16: Quaid-e-Azams Statement published in the Pakistan Times Lahore, June 1947
17: Sisir Gupta, page-95
18: Sisir Gupta, Page-76
19: Panchsheela and after page-15, Gurihal Jain Aia publishing House Bombay 1960
20: V.P Menon

40
21: The Emergence of Pakistan page 230 by Chaudhary Muhammad Ali
22: Pakistan Ki Siasi Tareekh, Vol-3, page-382 by Zahid Chaudhary
23: Chaudhary Muhammad Ali Page: 232-234 and Zahid Chaudhri, page 364-365
24: Quaid-e-Azam By G. Allana, page-545
25: Pakistan Ki Siasi Tareekh Zahid Chaudhari 141-143 and 382-383
26: Chaudhari Muhammad Ali, Page: 232-234
27: Sisir Gupta, Page: 65
28: The transfer of Power in India By V.P Menon, page 113-117
29: Muqaddan-i-Kashmir By Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan, Jang publishers page-107
30: White paper on Jammu and Kashmir Dispute Page-
17, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Govt, of Pakistan
31: Stanley Walport, page: 347-350
32: Alaister Lamb, page 161-163

41
33: Pakistan ki Siasi Tareekh by Zahid Chaudhari, page: 365-370
34: Stanley Waldport, Page: 350-351
35: Zahid choudhr, page: 368-369
36: Chaudhri Muhammad Ali, Page: 229-230
37: Chasm-i-Deed By Feroz khan, Page: 11-12, Feroz Sons 1974
38: Gum Gashta Qoom By Sardar Shaukat Hayat, page 280-28jang publishers
39: Kashmir A Disputed Legacy, By Alastair Lamb, page: 228-229, Oxford University Press
40: Alastair Lamb, page 247-273
41: Pakistan Ki Tareekh By Zahid Chaudhari, page: 235-256 Vol-3
42: Later of the Governor General, India addressed to Maharaja Kashmir, 27 th October 1947
43: Alastair Lamb page: 182
44: Government of Indias White Paper on Hyderabad. 10 th August 1947
45: Times of India Bombay, 7th July 1952

42
46: Zahid Chaudhri, Page: 247
47: White paper on Jammu and Kashmir Dispute Ministry Affairs, Pakistan, 1947
48: The detailed reference A disputed Lagecy By professor Lamb
49: Alastair Lamb, Page 192-193
50: Alastair Lamb, Page: 204-210
51: Alastair Lamb, page: 282
52: Alastair Lamb, Page 303
53: Alastair Lamb, Page: 308-310
54: Alastair Lamb, Page: 313
55: Alastair Lamb, Page: 331
56: Alastair Lamb, Page: 134-141 and Satnley Wolport
57: Zahid Chaudhri, Page: 189
58: Tago-Taz-i-Javidana By major Gereral Fazal-e-Muqeem, page: 131-134, Oxford University Press
43
59: Sisir Gupta, Page: 300
60: Two Nations and Kashmir By Lord Birdwood, Page: 202, Robert Hale London 1956
61: Tahreek-i-Azadi-e-Kashmir By Aleef-ud-din Turabi, 189
62: Tahreek-i-Azadi-e-Kashmir By Aleef-ud-din Turabi, Page: 191 and 221
63: Kashmir Main Tehree-e-Muzahmat By Tahir Amin, page: 106-112, institute of policy Studies.
64: Kashmir Main Tehreek-e-Muzahmat By Tahir Amin, Page 149, Institute of Policy Studies
KASHMIR ISSUE-THE POSSIBLE SOLUTION
The Kashmir issue has now become very important for the world peace. There are certain solutions
possible for this problem. First that a plebiscite should be held throughout Kashmir and the Kashmiris
should be given an option to join either Pakistan or India. Apart from Indian denial to this solution, it is
not a principled stand. It is so because Kashmiris, under the principle of right of self-dtermination should
have the opetion to live independently as well. The other reason is that there million Hindus also dweel in
Indian held Kashmir along with six million Muslims. If the Muslims vote for Pakistan, which logic would
justify the Hindus forcible inclusion in Pakistan it is justify and against the Two Nation Theory.
The second proposed solution is that the Kashmiris should be given all the three options. Most probably
they would be given all the three options. Most probably they would go for their independent status.
Pakistan considers this solution against its interests. It should be kept in mind that Pakistan has its
important defense installation in AJK, Gilget and Baltistan. This solution is not acceptable for India as
well because then it would be morally bound to accept every demand for separation. It is not an
acceptable solution for China too. Because it would have to surrender some of its territory. Hence this
solution is not practicable too.
The third solution is that there should be a plebiscite in every district of Kashmir respectively with the
options of voting for annexation either with Pakistan or with India. This proposal also violates the right of
44
self-determination for Kashmirs who might wish to live independently. There could be all the three
options before every district but it is a proposition unacceptable for all the three neighvouirng countries. It
is feared that through the implementation of this proposal Kashmir would be divided into three parts.
Jammu and Laddakh may side with India AJK with Pakistan and some areas adjacent with the Valley may
opt for total independence. Hence the issue would become more complicated which makes it unpractical.
The fourth is that the River Chenab should be accepted as boundary. As a result, Jammu would become a
part of India while, rest of Kashmir would be included in Pakistan. The unnatural and impracticable
aspect of this solution is that the Non-Muslim majority areas of Laddakh would also be included in
Pakistan.
The fifth solution is that the Muslim majority areas of the districts of Kargil, Poonch and the whole Valley
should be given to Pakistan without holding plebiscite and India should take over Jammu and Laddakh. It
is comparatively a better solution but India would not accept it because any country will agree to a change
in its geographical boundaries only when it reaches its last stages after successive cries. India can only
agree to this solution of Kashmir if such a condition prevails there. Such a state may bring independence
for Khalistan, Nagaland and other similar movements too. Such a situation has not been faced by India
during the last fifty years whereas Pakistan has undergone such a situation which has resulted in its
bifurcation.
The negative aspect of all the above five solutions is that there implementation would increase the
feelings of anger and resentment against the Muslims within India. The Indian Hindus would have a
feeling that Muslims would never hesitate in splitting India even in future. Such a psychological state
would give helplessness and defensive position to Indian Muslims. They would blame Pakistan for all of
their miseries. It is a fact that BJP in India has become strong since the start of the militant movements in
Kashmir.
We should go for a solution which may be helpful in improving the condition of Kashmiri Muslims, is in
the interest of Indian Muslims, may not disturb Indian boundaries and is satisfactorily accepted for
Pakistan. In this scribes opinion there are two such solutions. One that the whole occupied Kashmir
should be granted a special status in Indian Constitution with full internal autonomy and special
relaxations should be allowed on its borders with Pakistan. Such a special status should be part of the
treaty between Pakistan and India and U.N should become the guarantor. Hence occupied Kashmir would
remain a part of India constitutionally but it would have absolute autonomy in its internal affairs. The
second solution is also close to the first one that a new province under the name of sate of Kashmir should
be formed comprising of the Valley and other Muslim majority areas. Jammu and Laddakh should be
separated from it and this Muslim majority province should be given full autonomy. Along with this, the
Control line should be acknowledged as international boundary. There are certain questions regarding
complete internal autonomy. These questions are of the types as to whether the heads to that state should
45
be called as President or Prime Minister, whether the state should have the power to make international
treaties and should be empowered to issue its passport and Visa? However, all of these questions are of
supplementary nature and can be settled amicably through negotiations.
In this scribes opinion, the above solution can be acceptable and satisfactory for all parties. It will be
acceptable for Kashmir is because they would be able to form an ideal society through this plan, there will
be no restriction upon them and they would be able to meet their Kashmiri brothers across the border as
well. They would be practically free though it would be a step less than freedom. If they introduce real
democracy in their society, there would be no one to govern them against their well. This solution is
profitable for Pakistan because Pakistans real motive is to bring Kashmir is out of the state of
suppression and suffocation and to enable them to form a society of their own free from any Indian
pressure. The same was the motive behind the creation of Pakistan. Quaid-e-Azam, by accepting the
Cabinet Mission Plan, made all realize that his real intention was the protection of the rights of Muslims
and not extension in the geographical boundaries. Although, through this plan, Kashmir would not be
annexed to Pakistan but it would no longer be practically with India as well. It is hoped that this plan
would ensure a prosperous future for Pakistan with great pace.
This solution is good for India as its most important issue would be resolved without a change in its
geographical limits. Although India will have to swallow the fact of internal autonomy but it is an
established and just concept among the democratic countries of today, which brings humiliation to none.
India is a poor country. If is can get rid of this problem at the cost of mere internal autonomy, it is not a
bad deal.
I believe that there could be two more possible benefits through this solution. One that the Indian
Muslims would get major support as it is necessary for their rights that they should have a rule over a
province of their majority within India. Such a province and governments would certainly give honor to
them. Such a province would protect against any oppression done to any Muslim anywhere in India.
Hence, the state of Kashmir would be a supportive stand for the Indian Muslims. Such a solution would
strengthen Hindu-Muslim relations within India and the elements of extremism would become weaker.
The second advantage of the solution is that the state of Kashmir would embridge the gulf between
Pakistan and India in future. The two countries are already linked up with each other, due to the one
hundred and eighty million populations of Muslims in India, in such a way that there is no evasion. The
friendly terms between the two countries are quite essential because both are nuclear powers. The state of
Kashmir can play the vital rule in it.
46
An important factor in this respect is who would initiate. The political limitations of both the countries
dont let them break the ice. The most appropriate way is that the prominent and accredited Kashmiri
leaders should hold dialogue with both the countries by adopting a unanimous stand and formula. In fact,
the key to this problem lies with the leaders of India held Kashmir.
The next question is what should be done if India refused to accept this solution as well. The answer is
that in such a condition, all Muslims of occupied Kashmir should eliminate their separate entity and get
united under one banner for peaceful political struggle. At present, they have thirty organizations and all
of them have separate voices. All parties Hurriyat Conference is a loose alliance which keeps changing its
leader every year. Such a grand motive requires sacrifice of all kinds. They will have to choose one leader
by surrendering their ago. In fact, it is the only way to success.
If the Kashmiris get united, no one can keep them away form success. Pakistan, in such a state, should
continue its support for Kashmir is on political, diplomatic and moral levels. However, it should not
indulge itself in any kind of violent activity as any such activity from any quarters wrong and disallowed
by the religion as well. A detailed discussion can be studied on this issue in Jihad & Terrorism written
by this scribe. Pakistan has tried every formula for the Kashmir Issue but the formula of National alliance
has never been tried either by it or even by Kashmirs thought the real solution lies in itself.
It is also essential that instead of waiting for the settlement of Kashmir Issue, Pakistan would resolve all
of its disputes through treaties like Indus Basin Treaty and Treaty of Runkuch. It would give focal
importance to Kashmir issue and every new treaty between both the countries would be a positive step
towards the solution of Kashmir problem.
47
48
49

Kashmir Issue by Dr. Farooq Khan

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Kashmir Issue by Dr. Farooq Khan

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1

THE KASHMIR ISSUE

Back ground, Current situation and the solution

THE HISTORY OF KASHMIR

The Sikh Regime:

THE BACK GOUND OF BRITISH-SIKH AGREEMENT OF LAHORE

The commencement of Political Activates

The Formation of Muslim Conference:

The decision of changing the title of Muslim Conference to National Conference:

Reinstatement of Muslim Conference

HOW IT BECAME A PROBLEM

1. The Unprincipled stand of Muslim League and Muslim Conference

This stand of Muslim league, in fact, gave birth to Kashmir dispute.

2. Redcliff Commission and Muslim League

Therefore, the proposal of appointing Redcliff as chairman of boundary commission granting

3. The unrealistic policy of Muslim league

4. Anti-Pakistan Policy Congress and Mountbatten and their mutual conspiracy

BLUNDERS OF PAKISTANI LEADERSHIP COMMITTED ON KASHMIR ISSUE AFTER

1. The tribal attack on Kashmir

It was, obviously, a major setback.

(11) The blunder of annexing Junagarh to Pakistan

(3) Pakistan refusal to accept Kashmir in return of Hyderabad Deccan

It is a pity that Pakistan lost a good opportunity.

(4) Unconditional inclusion of Pakistan in Anglo-American block

(5) The blunder of not benefiting from Indo-China war

(6) 1965 war and the Tashkent Agreement

(7) Bhuttos blunder before Simla Agreement.

(8) Misplanning of General Zia on Kashmir and the Siachin Issue

THE DECEITFUL, UNDEMORATIC & TYRANNICAL ATTITUDE OF INDIA AFTER

KASHMIR ISSUE AND U.N.O

1. 17-01-1948: Security Council resolution No. S/651

THE USE OF VETO POWER BY RUSSIA

AUGUST 1988-THE ONSET OF RESISTANCE Movement & THE

THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE INFLUENCES OF THIS

LAHORE ACCORD, KARGIL WAR AND WASHINGTON PACT

The truth would only be determined in future.

SOME NOTEWORTHY FACTS UNDER PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A POSSIBLE & A JUST SOLUTION OF KASHMIR ISSUE

MUSHARRAF-WAJPAEE MEETING AND THE FUTURE FATH

Kashmir The University of the Punjab Lahore, By Mohi-ud-din Sufi

5: The Transfer of Peshawar 1942-1947 (editor-in-chief Nicholas Mansergh. Her Majestys

6: The Pakistan times. July 19, 1947

7: The Pakistan Times- July 11, 1947

8: Daily Dawn Karachi-May 11,1947

9: Daily Dawn Karachi-July 5, 1947

10: The Pakistan times -Lahore July 11, 1947

11: The Pakistan times-Lahore, July 18, 1947

13. Kashmir Ki Jang-i-Azadi, Page-55 (Classic Publishers by Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim

Free Kashmir Page-173 (Central printing Karachi 1970 by Aman-ullah khan

Pakistan Ki Siasi Tareekh vol-3, page, 148-149 by Zahid Choudhari

17: Sisir Gupta, page-95

18: Sisir Gupta, Page-76

20: V.P Menon

21: The Emergence of Pakistan page 230 by Chaudhary Muhammad Ali

22: Pakistan Ki Siasi Tareekh, Vol-3, page-382 by Zahid Chaudhary

24: Quaid-e-Azam By G. Allana, page-545

25: Pakistan Ki Siasi Tareekh Zahid Chaudhari 141-143 and 382-383

26: Chaudhari Muhammad Ali, Page: 232-234

27: Sisir Gupta, Page: 65

28: The transfer of Power in India By V.P Menon, page 113-117

29: Muqaddan-i-Kashmir By Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan, Jang publishers page-107

30: White paper on Jammu and Kashmir Dispute Page-

17, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Govt, of Pakistan

31: Stanley Walport, page: 347-350