It is in reference to a letter “The Kashmir dispute” by Mira Bahukhandi published in The Jakarta Post on Aug. 20.
To set the record straight, let’s just remember that on Oct. 27, 1947, Indian occupation forces landed in Jammu and Kashmir, violating the Indian Independence Act and Partition Plan.
What followed was harrowing, as Indian troops, ably supported by Dogra Maharaja Hari Singh’s soldiers, put more than 300,000 Kashmiri Muslims to the sword within two months, an obvious but futile attempt to change the population composition of the area and create a solid basis (or excuse) for Kashmir’s annexation to India.
The Indian Independence Act and Partition Plan of 1947 clearly outlined that British India would be divided into two sovereign states, India getting the Hindu-majority areas, and Pakistan securing the Muslim-majority ones, i.e. the Western provinces and East Bengal.
India, by landing its army in Jammu and Kashmir, violated the guidelines for deciding the future of Hyderabad, Junagarh and Kashmir, three of the princely states at that time, which were given the choice to accede either to Pakistan or India, considering the geographical situation and communal demography.
India forcibly occupied Hyderabad and Junagarh, which had a Hindu majority, but their rulers were Muslims. Kashmir was a Muslim-majority state but its ruler was a non-Muslim, who announced accession to India under a controversial accession document (Instrument of Accession). Many neutral observers deny the existence of such a document because, if it had been there at all, the Indian government would have made it public very early on. It never spoke of this precious document when the partition plan was in the offing.
It is a historical fact that if the partition was done with some sense of justice, India stood no chance of getting land access to Jammu and Kashmir. Thanks largely to the Boundary Commission headed by Cyril Radcliff, that split Gurdaspur, a Muslim-majority area and handed it over to India, providing it with a land route (or rather intrusion) into Kashmir.
Muslims and Hindus in the subcontinent did share ancient civilizations and lived together for more than a thousand years, yet they remained poles apart. Pakistan’s great leader Jinnah was a supporter of Hindu-Muslim unity initially, but even a leader of his caliber and sagacity soon realized the two were different entities. He left congress and joined the Muslim League, saying he had studied in a primary school and was going on to join a high school. That aptly describes the whole scenario of the bygone era.
No doubt, there are a large number of Muslims in the largest democracy of the world today, but just read the Indian senior judge, Justice Sachar’s report about them; he stated that Muslims were the most deprived and persecuted segment of Indian society. As for other minorities, there are scores of separatist movements in India, each one of them dying (literally and idiomatically) to get rid of the Indian yoke.
Who can forget what happened to dear Khalsas in Darbar Sahib, how the Babri mosque was dismantled, and what is going on with the Muslims in Indian-held Kashmir. If the Indian government is so sincere about the Muslims, why doesn’t it hold a referendum in Kashmir to ascertain its real popularity there?
Farhan Qutab
Islamabad
