Article 370 : A Dispute That is Not
“I find no parallel in history for a body of converts and their descendants claiming to be a nation apart from the parent stock” — Mahatma Gandhi
Upon independence from the British in August 1947, India inherited a bankrupt, balkanised state. The 565 principalities and chiefdoms that had learnt to act as semi-sovereign vassals of the British empire were to be brought under one common rule — with one common constitution — the Union of India.
It was left to a provisional government, to coalesce the myriad states. Pakistan, hacked out of India, from its western and eastern flanks, faced a similar challenge. Broadly Hindu majority states were expected to merge into the Indian union and those with Muslim majority into Pakistan — but it was not as straightforward. This integration was to be achieved through an ‘Instrument of Accession’ — an agreement to merge — signed between the ruler of each state and the respective Union.
Most princely states signed the Instrument of Accession, unhesitatingly. Some dithered — Jammu & Kashmir, Hyderabad and Junagadh, in particular. The case of Kashmir — a Muslim majority state ruled by a Hindu King was the opposite of Hyderabad and Junagadh — Hindu majority states ruled by Muslim Kings. They refused to merge with the Union of India, preferring instead, to retain their independence. Later, both Hyderabad sought the impractical option of a long distance marriage with Pakistan. Both were promptly annexed to the Union of India.
When Pakistan attempted to capture the bordering state of Jammu and Kashmir, given its large Muslim population, as a quid-pro-quo, the wily Hindu ruler Hari Singh, an unpopular king — at first succumbed and signed the Instrument of Accession with Pakistan but subsequently with India too — in defence — playing one against the other.
It was inconceivable for India to let Kashmir go to Pakistan for various reason. Partly because it is a state sacred to the Hindus — the abode of Shiva but also for access to waters of Indus river and a land route to the Middle East and the Western world. Hari Singh realised that. He entertained the idea of an Independent Kingdom — with himself at the head — like Sikkim and Bhutan.
The scramble for Kashmir provoked the first India-Pakistan war in 1947 itself — which came to an end with the UN resolution of April 1948. But the Indian and Pakistan forces remained — bifurcating Kashmir into Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Indian Kashmir ( known to Indians simply as Kashmir). Pakistan blames India, ever since, for massacring innocent Muslims in the plains of Jammu — a part of Kashmir, as India blames Pakistan for the genocide of Kashmiri Hindus in return. The truth lies somewhere in between.
The UN Resolution that brought the Indo-Pak war to end, required that both countries withdraw their forces from Jammu and Kashmir so that a plebiscite could be carried out for the self determination of the Kashmiri population. Since both countries refused to vacate their occupied lands — the plebiscite never took place and the UN resolution remained ineffective. The lines of actual control became de-facto international boundaries. Three wars have failed to change the status quo leave aside innumerable peaceful efforts to arrive at an acceptable conclusion.
Indian government, meanwhile, unilaterally accepted to introduce a temporary provision — article 370 — in its constitution, to define its relationships with the State of Jammu and Kashmir. allowing limited self rule — local taxation, police control and such. A combination of central laws and those enacted by an assembly of locally elected individuals continue to govern the state.
On 2nd August 2019, however, in a sudden move, the Indian parliament decided to abrogate Article 370. This act has been viewed as the biggest political development in India since independence — by some.
For ordinary Indians, its geographical boundary is incomplete without the face of Kashmir on its head. School text books display the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir including territories under the control of Pakistan and China as its own. Yet, Indians travelling to Kashmir are treated as aliens. Most are unaware that they cannot buy land or marry local Kashmiri women or acquire residency rights.
A truncated Kashmir is a troubling thought? India’s most beautiful state — its pride, is, in fact, a contested territory — a quasi — independent state — with its own flag and not the Kashmir their text books proclaim?
Most analysts agree that the abrogation of the article 370 was long overdue — an anachronous, unnecessary provision at best. A source of continued conflict between twenty first century neighbours — a hunting ground for terrorists pretending to be freedom fighters, at worst — seeking to benefit from a confused situation. The conflict makes Kashmir the world’s most militarised zone with a million soldiers stationed from both sides sporadically fighting and watching and guarding a snow filled mountainous terrain — spending billions of rupees — which could possibly be used to cure malnutrition, build schools and create prosperity for citizens in both countries on either side of the dispute..
Pakistan, meanwhile, is protesting the unilateral abolition of the article 370, urging the UN to intervene in the interest of the Kashmiri Muslims.
Let us not forget what India has done to Kashmir — Pakistan recently did that to Gilgit Baltistan — in its own country — replacing self rule with a federal diktat without the consent of the locals. It barely has the moral ground to oppose India’s move, leave alone the strength to fight its diplomatic might under the present government. Consequently, Pakistan has turned the issue into a religious one — support for Kashmiri muslims — threatened by the emergence of right wing Hinduism — under a Modi led BJP government.
India is home to 200 million Muslims — the largest population in any non Islamic state — who have lived in complete harmony within the Hindu majority going back to centuries. The phoney “two nation theory” that hypothesised Indian Muslims to be a “nation” separate from Hindus and thus become the cause of India’s division and creation of Pakistan was a historical mistake — even the Muslims admit. It is neither pure nor strong — its eastern flank Bangladesh- bitterly fighting Pakistan and leaving it in 1972. If Muslims in Pakistan think of Kashmiris as ‘people’ different from the Hindus, then Bangladesh* is good reminder of that mistaken thought. Indian secularism — by contrast.. remains intact.
Incidentally, not unlike the liberal Muslims from Kutch and Surat, the Muslims of Kashmir also openly accept their Hindu roots. Islam in Kashmir, in fact, is relatively recent. Most conversions taking place under Shah Mir — a Persian immigrant who succeeded the last Hindu ruler Udayan Dev in 1331. Many Muslims proudly claim to be converted Pandits. Amongst the local population at least there are no religious divisions. The infiltrators, mercenaries and Islamic radicals would like you to believe otherwise — of course.
Hindu nationalists now in power under the BJP, have never forgiven the Congress party for accepting the division of India, which at its peak extended from Burma in the East to Afghanistan in the West to Tibet in the North and Sri Lanka in the South, let alone the provisions of article 370 to prevail. Its removal, while satisfying the nationalist needs — reintegrating parts of the nation that were lost — is likely to bring much required stability and peace to the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Pakistan on the other hand appears trapped — given its already precarious situation at home. Terrorism, failing economy and a kleptocratic political class — under the thumb of an exploitative military rule — it can only make noises and feed the Anti India brigade. It does not help Pakistan sensationalising an issue that should not exist in the first place — creating impressions and opinions in the international press.
Article 370 is no more. Efforts to bring it back to life are fruitless… and in vain.
* Bangladesh was East Pakistan until 1972
