Kashmir, South Asia’s always-ignored tinderbox
By Tariq Ahmed
Mar/Apr 25
Kashmir continues to bleed and determine South Asia’s power relations due to its framing as a national security issue. Surrounded by multiple nation-states, the former princely state has long been and continues to be adversely affected by its location.
Its strategic significance can be traced back to the 19th-century Anglo-Russian conflict, when Central and South Asia were frontlines of the Great Game. British India and Russian-controlled Central Asia surrounded Kashmir. Russian influence made the British anxious, whereas the Russians saw Kashmir as a conduit between Central Asia and India.
Kashmir’s transition from Afghan rule to the Sikh empire (1820-46) was a turning point. Kashmiri Muslims passed through miserable conditions under the reprehensible Sikh rule: Adhan was banned, the obligatory five daily prayers were prohibited, mosques were sealed, cow slaughter was banned, and heavy taxes were imposed.
The Sikh dynasty fell into disarray, after Ranjit Singh death in 1839. Meanwhile, British-Sikh tensions escalated due to their mutual distrust as regards territorial matters. Two successive wars erupted and ended only when the Sikhs were subjugated under the Treaty of Lahore (March 9, 1846) and required to pay an indemnity. Failing this, the Sikh Empire was forced to cede territory and its rights and interests. Resultantly, Punjab and Kashmir under direct British colonial rule.
Selling Kashmir for Money and Merchandise
Britain, impatient to offload Kashmir due to its financial difficulties, sold the princely state to Gulab Singh, a Hindu ruler of the nearby province of Jammu, through the infamous Treaty of Amritsar on March 25, 1846. This was only days after signing the Lahore Treaty, relieving the British of all their direct control responsibilities. Besides the paltry sum of £750,000 (today about $31,040,131), the sale included people, land, crops, mountains, and rivers. In exchange for security guarantee, the British royalty required annual gifts of a few fabled Kashmiri shawls and cashmere goats.
The treaty formalized Gulab Singh’s loyalty to the British East India Company during the 1845-46 Anglo-Sikh war, and his relative munificence paid him dividends: He was installed as the Maharaja of the Jammu and Kashmir region, although neither he nor the British had any moral, political, cultural, or legal claims to Kashmir. This bizarre transaction was met with outrage and disbelief by the local population, whose homeland had been arbitrarily exchanged without their consent. This sense of injustice fueled unrest and resistance throughout Kashmir. The cries of Moha’id-e-Amritsar na- Manzour! (The Treaty of Amritsar is unacceptable!) reverberated throughout the skies.
This manipulative and exploitative treaty ushered in a century of ruthless Hindu rule. In Jammu, Gulab Singh was notorious for brutalizing Muslims. For geostrategic, political, economic, and military reasons, the British needed him and so simply ignored his brutality. Sounds familiar, right? This treaty also enabled the British Empire to indirectly incorporate this region. Gulab Singh’s authority as a colonial agent was limited, and British agents closely monitored and influenced his administration.
Scholars have wondered how two parties could sign a “sale deed” without any legal right to do so. The legal ownership of property – let alone a territory– is a prerequisite for selling, bartering, or forming territorial alliances. Whose land were they trading? Did they consult the real owners, the Kashmiris? Moreover, the Indian Independence Act of 1947 dissolved all agreements, arrangements, and treaties, including the Treaty of Amritsar, thereby invalidating any legitimacy derived from it.
Creating a buffer zone between the British and Russian empires minimized military risks and costs for the financially struggling East India Company. As both Russia and the Company secured their interests, Kashmiris’ daily lives changed dramatically. Gulab Singh levied heavy taxes, and inhuman forced labor caused economic and mental hardship, and Hindu culture was imposed upon the Muslims. While guarding an unwanted and unscrupulous ruler, the British ignored the Kashmiris’ suffering.
Partition
Hari Singh, a descendant of Gulab Singh, took over the government (r.1926-47) and plunged Kashmir even further into the darkness of repression. Forced labor, prisons, torture, land confiscations, taxation, and police violence against protesters amplified.
During Partition in 1947 – a time of horrendous communal hostilities and the call for a separate nation (Pakistan) – reached a crescendo. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs of both genders and all ages were killed in one of modern history’s most traumatic events. Characterized by violence and displacement, families were torn apart, causing irreparable economic and social damage. Thousands of Muslims were massacred in the Jammu Massacre of Oct.-Nov. 1947 (Khalid Bashir, “Kashmir: A Walk-through History,” 2018).
Under the Indian Independence Act 1947, all princely states were given the option of joining either India or Pakistan; Gulab Singh refused to join either. As a result, Kashmir remained an independent territory for a few months. Due to the Partition plan, Muslim-dominated parts became Pakistan, which led to Pakistan’s rightful interest in Kashmir.
To aid Kashmir’s oppressed Muslims, armed militias from northwest Pakistan entered the princely state. According to this Partition logic, Kashmir should have gone to Pakistan, as the state has a close to 77% Muslim majority (British Census of India of 1941, The Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of [British] India). In response, Hari Singh requested military assistance from the Indian government, then under Governor-General Lord Mountbatten.
As Jammu and Kashmir was an independent kingdom, Mountbatten refused to intervene. Taking advantage of the situation, India coerced the maharaja to sign the “Instrument of Accession.” Mountbatten inserted a referendum clause, to which Indian leaders agreed, that any accession must be ratified by the Kashmiris. The original document, which India claims is untraceable, has been questioned for its legal or moral validity, whereabouts, and originality.
Alastair Lamb has convincingly demonstrated in his “Birth of a Tragedy: Kashmir 1947” (Roxford Books, 1960) that India sent its troops to Kashmir before the alleged document was signed. They also co-opted and later installed Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah (d.1982), a popular local leader, as prime minister to manufacture the people’s consent. Soon, his insistence on a referendum led to his dismissal on the flimsy excuse of losing his cabinet’s confidence and the equally false charge of the Kashmir Conspiracy Case (Aug. 8, 1953). He spent the next 22 years in prison.
India and Pakistan fought their first war in January 1948. At India’s request, the UN intervened, and a ceasefire was called. But all subsequent Indian governments have demonstrated their inflexibility by not holding a referendum despite UNSCR 47’s (1948) calling for one. India fears that a truly democratic free and impartial plebiscite will favor Pakistan; although by definition self-determination implies all possible options including independence.
The UN failures in Kashmir are akin to those in Palestine. It emphasizes human rights and international law, while the international community – often perfunctorily – advocates dialogue and diplomacy. As in the Great Game, geopolitical considerations and trade interests complicate decisive action.
The Securitization of Kashmir
This conflict has resulted in a dangerous deadlock. Pakistan perceives any compromise as a threat to its identity and water security, whereas India sees any concession as a threat to its national security. In this battle of two nationalisms, Kashmiris are exposed to human rights violations, economic hardships, psychological trauma, and attempts at identity erasure. Indian-occupied Kashmir is now facing the juggernaut of settler colonialism.
This deadlocked conflict continues to have a widespread impact throughout South Asia, particularly in Kashmir, in terms of thousands of deaths, socioeconomic disruptions, limited and manipulated political representation, threats to cultural heritage, and strained sociopolitical relations.
Political territorial conflicts don’t just disappear, as we have seen in the Middle East and Ukraine. They endure. Unresolved conflicts cause prolonged suffering and instability and often lead to radicalization and violence. The international community’s benign neglect or Prime Minister Modi’s facile muscular nationalism is no substitute for an equitable and peaceful dispute resolution.
All that Kashmiris would like to see is an end to this zero-sum game. A civilized and just solution would be to determine what the people of Kashmir desire.
This self-determination is long overdue for us!
Tariq Ahmed is a freelance writer.