header image

kashmir myths – pakistan’s claims on kashmir- 3

Posted by littleindian on September 14, 2007. |

Continuing from: kashmir myths – pakistan’s claims on kashmir -2



The Indian Independence Act 1947 was the legislation passed by the British Parliament that officially approved the independence of India and the partition of India.
The legislation was designed by the administration of Prime Minister Clement Attlee, after Indian political parties came to an agreement on the transfer of power and the Partition of India with Viceroy Lord Mountbatten according to what has come to be known as the 3 June Plan or Mountbatten Plan.


Historical, Moral and Constitutional Perspectives – contd:

Professor Pranawa C. Deshmukh

Most of the princely states acceded to one or the other country in a very dignified way, governed by simple logistics. However, there were some exceptions.

The Jammu and Kashmir Maharaja dwelt deeply on the possibility that his monarchial control over Jammu and Kashmir would continue as it did under the British, with India instead of the British at whose mercy he would rule. He therefore sought a standstill agreement with both Pakistan and India.

The Khan of Kalat, now in Pakistan, wanted to accede to India, but India refused Kalat’s proposal. Likewise, India rejected the overtures of Bahawalpur, since they were not fully in accordance with the guidelines laid down for the principle of accession. (The Khan of Kalat later revolted against its accession to Pakistan and was arrested by the Government of Pakistan in 1958).

There is evidence that Kalat was forcibly annexed.

By Dr. Wahid Baloch

Balochistan, rich in oil and Gas with a 900 miles of warm water strategically located costline was very important for the survival Pakistan. Before the Partition of India and creation of Pakistan in 1947, Balochistan was a free sovereign independent state with it own parliament, the Dar-ul Awaam (the House of Commons) and Dar-ul Umraa (House of Lords).

Soon after the creation of Pakistan, it invaded Balochistan and forcefully annexed it into Pakistan. The Baloch people didn’t have a strong big army compare to Pakistani army, but still they resisted the Pakistani Occupation of their Baloch land.


The Khan of Kalat, did not have the mandate of his parliament to sign the accessation.
Evidence also confirms the claim of a failed revolt and the arrest of the Khan of Kalat.

Speech by: Balach Marri

…In 1958 President of Pakistan Sikandar Mirza, encouraged Khan of Kalat to demand restoration of Kalat State. When Khan of Kalat did it Sikandar Mirza declared Khan as traitor of Pakistan. On 8th of October 1958 Sikandar Mirza sent Pakistan troops to arrest Khan of Kalat with rest of family, suppressed the supporter and declared martial law in the hole of the country and Khan of Kalat was sent to Jail in Punjab.


The story of Kalat and Balochistan does not fall under this topic, but I hope to in future, write about my interesting findings of the event leading to its accession.
It certainly was not a case of “do unto Kalat what Pakistan says they have done unto Kashmir”. There has been and still is two distinctly different principles used by Pakistan in its dealing with these two princely states that were never part of the partition of India.


Prof Deshmukh contd:

Sardar Patel sent a message to Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir, through no less a person than Mountbatten himself, that if he were to accede to Pakistan, India would not take it amiss.

It is clear that had the Maharaja wanted to betray his subjects and accede to India, he would have done so when he had an opportunity in August 1947 itself. Similarly, if there was any reason to suspect that his subjects interests would be best served by acceding to Pakistan, this too could have been done in August 1947.

The public opinion in Jammu and Kashmir at that time provided no reason for the latter, while the Maharaja was not interested in the former, in his fond hope being to keep power with himself.

Foreseeing that a referendum in Jammu and Kashmir would not guarantee a majority view in favor of accession to Pakistan, Pakistan resorted to the medieval ways of the Moguls, whose victims were their own ancestors.

On October 22, 1947, Pakistan launched a full- scale invasion of Jammu and Kashmir, though intrusions had begun almost immediately following the partition of India on August 15th.



In 1947-1958: The Teething Years, it is alleged:

“Kashmir, the last of the defiant states, was the reverse of Hyderabad. It had a Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, but his subjects were mostly Muslims, accounting to 78 percent of the total population. The Maharaja was reluctant to join either India or Pakistan.

But Lord Mountbatten urged him to take a decision to join either of the states before August 15, 1947. The Maharaja asked for more time to consider his decision. In the meantime he asked the Indian and the Pakistani government to sign a “standstill agreement” with him. Pakistan consented but India refused.

The local population of Poonch began to press the Maharaja to accede to Pakistan. In August 1947, they held a massive demonstration to protest against the Maharaja’s indecisiveness. The Maharaja panicked. He asked his Hindu paratroopers to open fire, and within a matter of seconds, several hundred Muslims were killed. Rising up against this brutal action, a local barrister called Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim immediately set up the Azad Kashmir government and began to wage guerrilla warfare against the Maharaja.

By October 1947, the war of Kashmir had begun in earnest. The Pathan tribesmen from the North West Frontier Province, wanting to avenge the deaths of their brothers, invaded the valley. On reaching the valley of Kashmir, they defeated the Maharaja’s troops and reached the gates of Srinagar, the capital.”


Even if this account is true, there are three important points to note:
1.) it calls the Maharaja’s soldiers hindu “paratroopers” and not indian soldiers; why they have called these soldiers “paratroopers”, I haven’t found a reason.
2.) Neither the Indian military nor any paratroopers were in Kashmir, so why Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim’s Azad Kashmir “government” resort to wage “a guerrilla warfare” against the Maharaja, is not clear.
3.) it does not deny the invasion into the kingdom of tribesmen from the NWF province. However honourable was their motive, the invasion into an independent kingdom is always illegal.

Pakistani Raiders
Pakistani tribal soldiers surrendering in the War of 1947


India argues this based on the content of this book written by a Pakistani General.

Major General Akbar Khan“…We had assumed that Kashmir would naturally join Pakistan”

“… That the Maharajah, a non-Muslim, wished to avoid accession to Pakistan had been obvious, but now the fear was that his hands were likely to be strengthened also by Sheikh Abdullah, a Muslim Leader of Kashmir, hero of the Indian National Freedom Movement, who had previously opposed the conception of Pakistan. Our own safety and welfare also demanded that the State should not go over to India .. Pakistan’s military security would be seriously jeopardised if Indian troops came to be stationed along Kashmir’s western border.

“…The authorities needed a lot of assistance from the Army in the shape of plans, advice, weapons, ammunition, communications and volunteers. They did not ask for it, because the whole thing had to be kept secret from the Commander-in-Chief and other senior officers who were British. There were, however, also senior Pakistani officers in the Army who could have been taken into confidence – and these were in a position to help a great deal…

“…Ultimately, I wrote out a plan under the title ofArmed Revolt inside Kashmir”. As open interference or aggression by Pakistan was obviously undesirable, it was proposed that our efforts should be concentrated upon strengthening the Kashmiris themselves internally—and at the same time taking steps to prevent the arrival of armed civilian or military assistance from India into Kashmir…

“…Lieutenant Colonel Masud (latter Brigadier Tommy Masud) of the Cavalry, offered to help with collecting and storing the condemned ammunition…

“…The Prime Minister also promised to obtain some light machine guns (Brens) from a war dump in Italy or somewhere abroad…”


If we are to believe in the truth of General Akbar’s narration, it leaves no doubt that the invasion in October 1947 was planned and executed by Pakistan military.


KASHMIR HUMAN RIGHTS site; Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)

Demobilised Muslim soldiers returned to Poonch and Mirpur in Jammu and Kashmir to find that the maharaja was refusing to accept them into his army.

In the post-war period, the maharaja increased taxes, leading to widespread poverty. This provoked massive protests, particularly in Poonch where, in October 1947, an uprising was led by demobilised soldiers, armed by tribes in the North-West Frontier Province region of Pakistan.

On 4 October this uprising gave rise to a provisional government of the Democratic Republic of Kashmir. None of the bourgeois historians mention this development but it undoubtedly represented an attempt to move towards a struggle for an independent future for the Kashmiri people. The uprising lit the fires of rebellion against Dogra rule in other areas. At the end of October, soldiers of the Gilgit Scouts – British imperialism’s fighting force in the Gilgit Agency – rose up. There were less well-developed protests in Ladakh.

The provisional government only lasted until 24 October. It was shunted aside by one of the pro-Pakistani leaders of the Muslim Conference, supported by sections of the Pakistani military and backed up by armed fighters from North-West Frontier who entered Jammu and Kashmir on 22 October. Sections of Muslims in the maharaja’s army began to desert, going over to the side of armed fighters and putting his rule under increasing threat.


Prof Deshmukh contd:

All Sikhs killed. All women raped. This was the military signal transmitted by the Pakistani commander who attacked Skardu on September 6th to his headquarters.
Ample evidence based on the diaries of Pakistani army officers and political leaders, in addition to incriminating reports in a news-paper none other than Dawn, proves that the money, food, arms, petrol, ammunition, uniforms, trained personnel, soldiers and military officers of the army, were provided by Pakistan for this invasion.

The invaders were driven by a lust for loot, murder and rape, much as Pakistan did later to East Pakistan before it broke out into independent Bangladesh. The victims were Hindus, Sikhs and also Muslims, again, much like what happened later in East Pakistan.


That atrocities had been perpetrated was confirmed by an independant eye witness.

a book written by American photo-journalist Margaret Bourke-White.

She describes the plunder by the raiders:

“Their buses and trucks, loaded with booty, arrived every other day and took more Pathans to Kashmir.
Ostensibly they want to liberate their Kashmiri Muslim brothers, but their primary objective was riot and loot. In this they made no distinction between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims....The raiders advanced into Baramulla, the biggest commercial centre of the region with a population then of 11,000, until they were only an hour away from Srinagar. For the next three days they were engaged in massive plunder, rioting and rape. No one was spared. Even members of the St. Joseph’s Mission Hospital were brutally massacred.”


The evidence shows, the first acts of human rights atrocities were by muslims on muslims, and hindus and sikhs. And this in all probabilities was ordered by the Pakistan military.
Almost as if the fuse to a chain of explosives had been lit by a few who craved to occupy Kashmir at all costs; what we are now witnessing is the after effect of that awful incident in Kashmir’s unfortunate history.


Prof Deshmukh contd:

Muslim scholars expressed disgust and shame about Pakistan’s inhuman conduct against fellow Muslims in the name of religion. In fact, since the majority of the population was Muslim, it was the Muslim community that suffered the most.

There was public outcry against Pakistan’s atrocious misconduct. Muslim scholars expressed disgust and shame about Pakistan’s inhuman conduct against fellow Muslims in the name of religion.

The shameful atrocities cannot, of course, be imagined in a civilized society, but can, of course be repeated by the perpetrators of the genocide, as they have done several times since.

Eminent Muslim leaders, who witnessed those unfortunate events, spoke of the aggression by Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir in the following words:

“It is a strange commentary on political beliefs that the same Muslims of Pakistan who want the Muslims of Kashmir to join them invaded the state, in October 1947, killing and plundering Muslims in the state and dishonouring Muslim women, all in the name of what they described as the liberation of Muslims of the State”.

On October 26th 1947, vested by the authority in him as the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh abandoned his standstill policy and acceded to India. Repeated scrutiny by the UN demonstrated that the accession was legal and complete.



Instrument of Accessation


REPLY FROM Lord Mountbatten to Maharajah Sir Hari Singh DATED 27 October 1947
My dear Maharajah Sahib,

Your Highness’s letter, dated the 26th Octobers has been delivered to me by Mr. V.P. Menon. In the special circumstances mentioned by Your Highness, my Government have decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India
Meanwhile, in response to your Highness’s appeal for military aid, action has been taken today to send troops of the Indian Army to Kashmir to help your own forces to defend your territory and to protect the lives, property and honour of your people.
My Government and I note with satisfaction that your Highness has decided to invite Sheikh Abdullah to form an Interim Government to work with your Prime Minister.
Yours sincerely, (Sd/-) Mountbatten of Burma


In 1947-1958: The Teething Years, it acknowledges

The Maharaja sensing his defeat took refuge in Jammu whence he appealed to India to send troops to halt the onslaught of the tribesmen. India agreed on the condition that Kashmir would accede to India. On October 26, 1947, the Maharaja acceded to India. Lord Mountbatten accepted the accession on behalf of India.


It is clear the “Story of Pakistan” does accept here:
1.) The Maharaja did sign the accessation, which was accepted by Viceroy Mountbatten.
2.) The Maharaja was under no duress from India to sign the Instrument of Accession.


Prof Deshmukh contd:

The Government of India sent its troops under Lt.Col.D.R.Rai to Kashmir on October 27, 1947 to save Kashmir from Pakistan’s invasion, and there was widespread jubilation among the citizens of Shrinagar and the inhabitants of neighboring towns and villages. Their morale was high.

They organized bands of volunteers to maintain law and orderthey collected all motor vehicles (for use by the Indian army…local drivers were at the wheels ready to risk their lives in defending their motherland.

Reacting sharply to the Pakistan’s invasion, Sheikh Abdullah said: The invasion of Kashmir is meant to coerce and compel the Kashmiris to act in a particular way, namely, to accede to Pakistan. Every Kashmiri resents this compulsion on his will (Times of India, Oct. 28th, 1947).

Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference was anti-British, and also anti- Maharaja. On behalf of the National Conference, Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq was deputed to explain to Pakistan the right of Kashmiris to self- determination. Sadiq made two visits to Pakistan for this purpose, but Pakistan would not support a referendum in Jammu and Kashmir unless the National Conference guaranteed that the verdict would be in favor of accession to Pakistan. In fact, Jinnah told Sadiq: Sheikh Abdullah and his party must close their shop as they have no role.

Pakistan revealed right from 1947 its bogus support to Kashmiri right to self-determination. These are telling events of history which lets loose Pakistan’s continued ill designs on Jammu and Kashmir and exposes its bogus support to Kashmiris right to self-determination.

The National Conference rejected Pakistan’s expectations (Dawn, Karachi, Nov.17, 1947). Yet, the National Conference recently suggested Pakistan’s involvement in resolving the Jammu and Kashmir situation (The Deccan Chronicle, November 12, 2000). Obviously, current politicians seem ignorant of historical developments!


The Kashmir Story

The State’s accession to India has never been challenged by the UN Commission for India and Pakistan or the Security Council.

As early as 4 February, 1948, the US Representative in the Security Council declared: “External sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir is no longer under the control of the Maharaja. With the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India, this foreign sovereignty went over to India and is exercised by India and that is how India happens to be here as a petitioner.”

Similarly, the representative of the USSR said at the 765th meeting of the Security Council: “The question of Kashmir has been settled by the people of Kashmir themselves. They decided that Kashmir is an integral part of the Republic of India.”
The legal adviser to the UN Commission came to the conclusion that the State’s accession was legal and could not be questioned. This fact was further recognized by the UN Commission in its report submitted to the UN in defining its resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949. Both these resolutions were accepted by India and Pakistan.



To be continued


Posted by littleindian on . |

6 Responses to “kashmir myths – pakistan’s claims on kashmir- 3”

  1. little indian great post as ever.I may not agree with a few things you say.But ur posts and well researched and thought inducing.Keep up the good work.Enjoyed reading this.

  2. thanks granderbharata

    that is not fair, 🙂

    specially if you do not agree, share your thoughts with us.
    If I am unable to reply, others who have the knowledge may do so.

    It doesn’t neceassarily have to end in arguments. So please feel free.

  3. As usual you have done your homework. I appreciate your campaign to bring truth to light. What I am worried about now is that india should not accept the LOC at any cost as the final solution. It is clear that Kashmir was ours and the welfare of Kashmiris lies with India. I suspect the kashmiris would feel the same too…

  4. Thanks rambhai,
    I am glad to have youvisiting my site, and the support.

    Accepting the LOC will be a cruel cruel tragedy.
    As I have said before, without Pakistani invasion in 1947,
    Kashmir could well be a free and UNITED and secular nation today.

    The misery of all Kashmiris,
    hindus and muslims has been brought on by Pakistan ALONE.
    All the evidence is out there, and with each day, the evidence grows thanks to the internet.

    Indian media has been criminally lazy and have led anti- India propaganda get the prominence.

    I have 3/4 parts more to write…I will be happy for your comment on those too.

  5. […] kashmir myths: india refuses a plebiscite – 1 Continuing from: kashmir-myths: pakistan’s claims on kashmir […]

  6. […] Continuing from: kashmir-myths: pakistan’s claims on kashmir […]