Kavita Desai.
Extension History Major Project.
Kashmir Today, Who is Responsible?
An evaluation of changing historical writings on the assessment of events
occurring during the independence period in the northern state of
Kashmir in the Indian subcontinent.
Synopsis:
Kashmir has, forever, been an important nationalist issue for me. Living in India for
almost all my life and having visited Kashmir, I had my own beliefs, views, versions and perceptions of
history in Kashmir which have been drastically altered though this project. I began my research
without any aim or guidelines but as more and more resources became available and the pile of
information on the subject increased, I had to do justice to all my research with a definite question.
Considering the numerous interpretations and writings on Kashmir, I decided to select a specific
historical timeframe and eventually came up with a question on responsibility on the present situation
of Kashmir which I myself was keen to expose.
The aim of this essay is to highlight the major issues dealing with
historiography in Kashmir which greatly correlates to writing of history in general. In order to
understand the changing historical interpretations it is extremely important to know the events
themselves as well as the historians who are writing about it. Hence, an attempt has been made to
provide a chronology of the events as perceived and analysed by the historians and simultaneously
assessing the major historians and their work. The subject has been approached with a modernist view
of looking at the historians’ context and reasoning his work as well as the emperialistic (Rankean)
method of trying to find out “what essentially happened 1” by focusing on primary sources. However,
knowing that every account in historiography of Kashmir has been cursed with colossal degrees of bias
and misinterpretations this essay inevitably defends views of post-modernist historians like Vincent
who deny historical objectivity and claim that “distortion is built into the very nature of history.2”
______________________
57 years ago, two nations- India and Pakistan- were divided, a line drawn on the globe
that cut a home into half and its burning outcome is Kashmir 3 whose flames still flicker under
the weight of heavy international politics. Popularly known as the “Switzerland of East”4 and
the “heaven on earth5”, Kashmir is now “world’s most dangerous place”6. In 1947, the
independence of India led to the partition of the subcontinent and the 570 odd princely states
that were once a sovereign part of the British rule, had to decide their fate by choosing either
of the two new nations. This was when the entire Kashmir issue came into limelight of world
headlines. Being an important nationalist issue for Indians, Pakistanis and the Kashmiris,
there has been exhaustive writings throughout the past six decades. The fact that each
historian wrote his perspective in a different political and social context means that there is a
plethora of arguments from all points of view at one single occasion in history; and these
views are seen to be changing altogether in course of time as a result of the changing
international scenarios.
1
2
3
Ranke.
Vincent John. An Intelligent Person’s Guide to History Duckworth, London (1995)
The state held by the Maharaja prior to independence was comprised of the densely populated headquarters of the
state - Kashmir Valley, Jammu sector, Ladakh (now held by India) the northern areas of Gilgit and Balistan
(presently under Pakistan’s control) and present Chinese territory of Tibet. Also, a part of the Kashmir valley
division has now formed a separate government under the influence of Pakistan federation called Azad Kashmir.
All these regions are generally referred to Kashmir as a whole and the India held state is called Jammu and
Kashmir and the other areas are named similarly. This practise will be used in this essay as well.
4 Victoria Schofield praising the natural beauty of the land by comparing it with the ‘dream holiday destination’ of
Europe. – Kashmir in Conflict London, Tauris (2003). Also Iffat – Kashmir: Ethnic Conflict, International
Dispute, Karachi: Oxford University Press (2002) Introduction.
5 Famous quote - the 16th century Mughal King Shahjahan’s emotions as described by Urfi- a Persian poet as “If
there is a paradise in the world, it is then this Kashmir, it is here, it is here, it is here”
6 As said by Bill Clinton during is visit to India in March 2000- leading newspaper and internet-news headlines.
The following essay shall explore the different writings by certain major historians from each
of the varied backgrounds and time-periods, and their assessments of the most significant
happenings of the independence era; that set up the background to the problem still
prevailing in the state of Kashmir. This crucial time in the history of India, characterised by the
independence and partition of the subcontinent that was carried out without effective planning
and organisation, has had a direct impact on the lives of millions and thereby even on the
construction and interpretation of historical events. A critical examination of the issue from all
the given points of views concludes that it was the British clumsiness in organising and
effectively planning the partition and the legalities of the post-partition period. The intense
political competitiveness between the two new-born countries has also contributed to laying
the foundation of the crisis in Kashmir. “Every revolt seeks a justification in history, which is
re-examined endlessly and rewritten to fit revolutionaries’ needs.” 7 The same can be said
about Kashmir and it is therefore, an important issue of historiography. A close analysis of the
writings of influential historians that belong to the two major schools of historical writing on
Kashmir viz. Pro-Indian and Pro-Pakistani, highlights the key question in historiography “why
have approaches to the construction of history changed over time.” This essay also
addresses the areas in history concerning “historical debates”, “contrasting approaches to a
historical issue” and “use and misuse of history over time.”
History on Kashmir has never been written as a recollection to serve the mere purpose of
future preservation but was backed by socio-political motives of morality – identifying the
good and bad, judging the right and wrong – and once knowing that making attempts of
resolving the dispute. This is one of the most remarkable features of ancient historians
(especially Taticus) and is still evident in writings of Prem Nath Bazaz, one of the chief
political figures and the pioneer writer of persuasive kind of history. An educated Hindu from
the Kashmir valley, he was a primary source himself by witnessing and participating in the
incidents. Yet two of his major works ‘Azad Kashmir’ (1951) and ‘Struggle for Freedom in
Kashmir’ (1954) provide hypocritical, irrational and highly subjective arguments8 that have
had a great impact on Kashmiri historiography due to its emotive style and conversational
genre of writing. He has laid the foundation of anti-Indian, pro-Pakistani school of history.
The symptoms of conflict in Kashmir have been noted even in the pre-independence kingdom
of 1946 but, again there is a variation in the opinions of historians about its causal factors.
Almost all the schools have mentioned the backwardness and unjust treatment of the Muslim
community that was reduced to serfdom by the oppressive Maharaja9 and his Hindu allies.
This racial segregation between the two chief communities, who shared tremendous
bitterness for each other, has led certain historians (holding pro-Muslim and pro-British views)
to declare that Kashmir's situation is an internal fight for “liberation of the forever suppressed
Muslim Kashmiri locals against the autocratic king and enslaving Hindu domination in the
state.”10 Pro-Indian views, on the other hand, maintain that ‘the consolidation of the Dogra11
rule had coincided with the Indian freedom struggle against the British’12 while an exceptional
piece of writing by Mohan Lal Koul13 states that the Dogra (Hindu) rule was the initiation of the
sufferings awaited for the Muslims after the atrocities of Muslim rulers on the Kashmiri
pandits14. Subsequently, difference in the records on Maharaja can be seen as a direct
7
Jha - Kashmir, 1947 Delhi, Oxford University Press. (1996) pg.1
He denies the Pakistan’s ‘two nation theory’ and claims that ‘religion cannot segregate people’ but then
maintains that the majority of Kashmir’s Muslim population automatically justifies its accession to Pakistan.
9 Indian word for King (great king). Hari Singh, the great grandson of Gulab Singh was the head of the state at that
time. The British gifted Gulab Singh the entire northern frontier comprising the pre-independent state of Kashmir,
stretching further north towards Afghanistan and Russia and down to Punjab and Sindh regions.
10 Lamb - Kashmir- A Disputed Legacy.(1968) pg. 35 and also noticed by Campbell-Johnson– Mission with
Mountbatten (1951) pg. 214
11 The Maharaja (king) of Kashmir was from the Dogra dynasty that had its roots in north-western (Punjab) areas
of the subcontinent.
12 Kotru. M L - The Kashmir story (1997)
13 Mohan Lal Koul is a victim of the unjust treatment and sufferings inflicted by the Muslim community since the
13th century on fellow Hindus residing in Kashmir. He discusses the issue under the influence of strong emotional
frustration and anger in his book Kashmir: the wail of a valley (Chpt. 23)
14 Pandits- the top level of Hindu social hierarchy or the caste system.
8
outcome of the accession issue. Pro-Indian views of prime minister Nehru, Indian
commissionaires and British writers like Campbell- Johnson advocate a positive image of the
Maharaja not only to flatter him and convince him to accede with India but also to justify
‘Indian peace loving intentions’ and hence get the elite masses to support any future decision
that is in favour of India. Pro-Pakistani notions mainly from writers like Beg, Bazaz and Lamb
provide an emotive account against the maharaja aiming straight at the incentives of the
downtrodden Muslim majority and thus moulding their views against the Indian authorities. If
either of the two prescribed views is considered, the accepted argument justly follows but is
efficiently contradicted by an equally strong line of reasoning. The only justifiable reason, for
the occurrence of two such contradictory arguments, is to that both the parties (India and
Pakistan) desire to build a strong foundation in order to strengthen their petition.
The misinterpretations of the legal documents, due to its unclear and incompetent nature,
have raised another huge controversy on the issue of accession. It is interesting to note that
there are no definite statements about the terms, upon which the princely states were to
merge with India or Pakistan, either in the Indian Independence Act – 1947 or the
Government of India Act – 1935 or the few other official documents. Several historians15
have translated the section 7(1) (b) of the Indian Independence act stating, “With the lapse of
British paramountcy, the princely states were technically free to accede to either dominations”
but the anti-Indian historians16 have added the phrase “or to remain independent.” This is one
of the chief reasons that have led to the divergence in views and establishment of different
schools in historiography. The indecisiveness of maharaja in choosing either India or Pakistan
can be justified by this very idea of being able to remain independent. The pro-Indian and the
British school assert that “there had not been any considerations for princely states to choose
the path for independence.”17 It can be thus argued that the British played a vital role in the
problematic recording of history of Kashmir due to unplanned and unorganised formulation of
clear and coherently corresponding legal provisions.
Another controversy that is a resultant of the misinterpretations of the official documents is
whether ‘it was the responsibility of the ruler or the local public to decide the merger of their
state.’ Most authors abiding on pro-Muslim beliefs like Bazaz, Gulam Nabi Fai etc, believe
that the accession issue was to be decided according to the will of the people and by a
democratic method of free and fair plebiscite. This has been an idea shared even by Lord
Mountbatten considering his advice to the Maharaja on his visit to Kashmir in June 1947. 18
Modern writers like Khushwant Singh have also stated “that by any democratic norm
Kashmiris have every right to ask for freedom.”19 The pro-Indian writers like J N Dixit20 and B
S Goel21 also abide that the Indian National Congress always stood for the right of people to
decide their future thus beholding their democratic views. These were considerably
discouraged by Jinnah (Muslim League) and the British who insisted that the decision be laid
in the hands of the Ruler. Although this has been ignored by the pro-Pakistani school, the
claim can be ideally supported by the reference to the public statement made by Jinnah
stating that it was the maharaja’s sole right to decide the question of accession without any
obligation to consult the wishes of the people.22 It is therefore surprising that pro-Pakistani
historians prescribe their views in favour of a leader who openly denies any plans to fulfil their
demands. Even today the legality of the maharaja’s accession to India is constantly
scrutinised with a demand for the consideration of public opinion.
Bose – Kashmir- Roots of conflict, Paths to peace, Cambridge., Massachusetts : Harvard University Press,
(2004) pg.30 and Noorani – The Kashmir question (1964) pg. 21
16 Lamb – Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy. (1968) pg. 35 and Bose – Kashmir- Roots of conflict, Paths to peace
Cambridge., Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, (2004) pg.33 and Bazaz. Struggle for Freedom in Kashmir
(1954)
17 Malik Iffat – Kashmir: Ethnic Conflict, International Dispute (2002) pg.63. References by Campbell-Johnson. –
Mission with Mountbatten (1951) pg. 120
18 ibid
19 A magazine column With Malice Towards One and All in ‘Hindustan Times’ – 11th June 2004
20 Dixit. J. N. - India- Pakistan, In War and Peace. Pg.308
21 Goel. B. S. - The Story Of Kashmir- (1951)
22 Chari. A.S.R - The Kashmir Problem (1965) pg.34
12
The recordings of events following the arguments over the accession issue have further
complicated the problem prevailing in Kashmir. The fact that Pakistan rigorously curtailed the
supplies of petrol, salt, sugar, cloth and other consumer goods23 in order to “apply an
economic ‘squeeze’ in Kashmir as a violation of the standstill agreement”24 has been
mentioned in numerous historical writings but is deliberately ignored by certain pro-Pakistani
historians like Bazaz and Bamzai as it does not seem to compile with their argument thus
highlighting use of selective evidence in historiography. In the later months of 1947, directly
after the curtailment of goods into Kashmir, an upheaval amongst the border-linking areas
was detected. Revisionist historians have reanalysed the upraising determining it to be a
direct outcome of the communal riots whose flames were fanned by winds of nationalism
prevailing in the post-independence phase.25
Again, the social segregation and political struggle has provoked another debate upon
participants of the violence. They are classed as “raiders”- by Maharaja and the Indian
commissionaires – and “freedom fighters” - by the popular Kashmiri writers 26 holding proPakistan views. This is a case because each of the terms (‘raiders’ and ‘freedom fighters’) is
used to morally and ethically justify various facets of the evidence that Pakistan supported the
rebelling community. Bazaz and Rahman, on affirm that “the Kashmiri’s sent an invitation for
Pakistani help and together rebelled against the signs that displayed the ruler’s desires to
accede to India.”27 On the other hand, Rao in his book ‘Legal aspects of the Kashmir Problem’
(1967) provides exhaustive hypothetical and rational evidence to prove Pakistan guilty for
spreading the seeds of hostility against India in the minds of Kashmiris. He uses an empiricist
approach by focusing on hermeneutics with rigorous examination of documentary evidence.
The Indian version maintains “the raiders were coming like an avalanche carrying
destruction”28 and Pakistan’s support in the infiltration intensified the situation. Pakistan has
rather had a weak and highly hypocritical stand in this argument. It first claimed to have
nothing to do with the disturbance in Kashmir and it were some ‘tribesmen’ from the remote
north-western regions and was therefore beyond its control but as more proof was revealed
about the Pakistani army’s involvement, it covered up by stating that the army personnel
engaged in the warfare were on leave29. Therefore the political terminology determines the
stance of each group in history of Kashmir and subsequently carries on the discrepancies in
recording of history through time.
The assessments of Maharaja’s motives and the external socio-political conditions under
which he acceded to India have added to the problems of historiography. Bazaz argues that if
the Congress leaders had not made repeated and vigorous attempts to influence the
Maharaja in making preparations for joining India, there would have been no incursion of
tribesmen.30 Again, his lack of evidence and improper examination makes his account bias
and therefore unreliable. The letter sent by Maharaja to Lord Mountbatten on the 26th of
October requesting Kashmir’s accession to India which is included in appendices of every
historian, clearly demonstrates the contribution of Pakistan in insurgency in Kashmir, the
helplessness of Maharaja and his people, legal aspects of accession and most importantly it
legalises the Indian position and right over Kashmir. Since the last fifty seven years, this
primary evidence has formed the basis of all Indian claims of authority over Kashmir and has
simultaneously been highly scrutinised by pro-Pakistan writers. One such modernist historian
is British academic Alistair Lamb who has questioned the authenticity of the documents and
pointed out that the instrument of accession was post-dated. This has established a new
course of debate that has been followed through times by various historians. His post23
Chari. A.S.R - The Kashmir Problem (1965) points out that Kashmir had road and rail connections only with
Pakistan of which Pakistan took a beastly advantage.
24 Ministry of Information and Broadcasting - Defending Kashmir (1949)
25 Bose – Kashmir- Roots of conflict, Paths to peace Cambridge., Massachusetts : Harvard University
Press,(2003) p.32
26 Bazaz. - Azad Kashmir, Lahore, Ferozsons (1951), Fai Gulam Nabi- The Plebiscite solution for Kashmir.
27 Bazaz. - Azad Kashmir, Lahore, Ferozsons (1951)
28 Goel – The Story of Kashmir (1951)
29 Rao - Legal aspects of the Kashmir Problem (1967) p.40. Insights on the ‘tribesmen’ and their identity provided
by Chari - The Kashmir Problem (1965) p.38, Sharma – The Kashmir Story (1967) p.2 and Information services
of India – Kashmir : 1947-1956 p.10
30 Bazaz - Struggle for Freedom in Kashmir (1954) p.339
structuralist approach and emperialistic notions of analysing and co-relating the papers from
various sources of evidence have provided objectivity to his accounts. However, Indian
acceptance of the instrument of accession was justified by stating that “India intervened in
Kashmir on the response to an SOS from the people and ruler of the state and the act was
not tainted by any ambitions of self-aggrandisement or acquisition of territory.”31 Also some
pro-Indian historians like Iffat and Goel mention that the accession was not completely
binding (was provisional) and the will of people would finally prevail by the means of plebiscite
once peaceful conditions were restored. 32 This has been the stated condition even in the
return letter of Lord Mountbatten to the Maharaja (dated. 27th October 1947). Again, not many
historians mention this primary evidence and are therefore misusing historical evidence to
produce a bias and unjust history compatible only with their own arguments.
The very next day, Indian troops were speedily transported in Kashmir and a full-scale war
was being fought between the two nations. Both the countries and their historians have
provided copious excuses and arguments over the initiation of the war. After two months of
this armed battle, the security council of the United Nations was called upon by the
government of India as a ‘peaceful way of securing Kashmir’33 but the reports have only
concluded that ‘the roots of the Kashmir dispute are deep.’ 34 Korbel, one of the few ‘historical’
writers on the subject, provides justification for all the three viz. Indian, Pakistani and British;
versions of ‘truth’ and it can be derived that Indian stand is more weighed and rational. He
supplies ample evidence to support his arguments and even adapts a relativist approach of
‘studying the historian’ to a certain extent. His book ‘Danger in Kashmir’ (1966) is an excellent
piece of historiography and his chronological records offer a considerable depth in the study
of conflict in Kashmir but bears certain constraints of absolute objectivity.
A completely unbiased and truly historical account on Kashmir is questionably unfeasible.
Nonetheless, after critically examining all the available sources, both primary and secondary,
it can be derived that the basic hindrance was the incompetence of British authorities in
formulating an effective and lucid legal procedure without considering the requirements of
certain exceptions. Furthermore, politics and competition between India and Pakistan for
proving themselves a better world community with larger support from its own people as well
as outsiders, to a considerable extent, has played a remarkable role in instituting the problem.
The diversity in historiography, interpretations, choice of evidence and form of arguments is
not characterised by the historical framework of the historians but by their socio-ethnic
dimensions that has led to remarkable misuse and manipulation of history for political
purposes. Therefore the Kashmir issue evidently supports a post-modernists’ denial of
objectivity in recording of history due to the inevitable association of the historian to his
subject.
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, India – Defending Kashmir (1947)
Malik Iffat – Kashmir: Ethnic Conflict, International Dispute (2002) p.67 and Goel – The Story of Kashmir
(1951)
33 Chari. A.S.R - The Kashmir Problem (1965) p.40 and Information services of India – Kashmir: 1947-1956.
34 Final (3rd) report of United Nation’s Council India and Pakistan (UNCIP) – 1949 as supplied by Korbel, Danger
in Kashmir, Princeton, N.J. (1966)
31
32