An Unresolved Case, Initiated on July 19, 1947 – I

By: Sohail Parwaz

The Indian philosopher and the founder of basic political science, Acharya Kautiliya was the teacher and prime minister of first Hindu emperor Raja Chandragupta Maurya, for whom he put into writing the inclusive constitution explaining a government system which Kautiliya developed for the Emperor. This treatise, known as The Kautiliya Arthashastra is considered to be the oldest and most exhaustive treatise on the governance and administration of a state. Kautiliya in this Arthashastra inscribes: “The Raja longing for victories and invasions should place himself at the center of the axis while all the principalities and states situated in the neighbourhood should be declared adversaries and whenever these neighbours are found bogged in internal or outer hitches and glitches, should be invaded and annexed forthwith. If these neighbouring countries are found feeble and fragile or having no support at all, then either they should be kept under stress and strain or purged from tip to toe.” Kautiliya’s advice to the Raja was to remember that the neighbours of his neighbours were not only Raja’s friends but his natural allies as well. Kautiliya strongly believed that his ‘friendship and enmity’ formula could effectively work for the expansion of the Raja’s empire.

Chandragupta succeeded to the Nanda throne in 321 B.C. Ever since the emergence of the Mauryan Empire, the subcontinent witnessed many rises and falls. Be it the disintegration of Empire or the rise of a mercantile community, the rule of the Guptas or the invasion of the Huns, the conflicts of Chalukya, Pallava and Pandya or the political struggle between the Rashtrakutas, Pratiharas and Palas or the post-partition era of today’s India, no Hindu government has ever deviated from the basic teachings of Brahman Kautiliya who was the mentor and right hand of Emperor Chandragupta. The Brahman’s yearning for hegemony never depleted. In the recent past the most apt case in point is the occupation of Kashmir, subduing Bhutan, suppressing Bangladesh and irritating Nepal. No mention of Hyderabad Deccan, Goa and Junagarh, those were silently and criminally invaded and occupied soon after the Partition despite the fact that principalities never desired to live under Indian Dominion.

The Kashmir issue was created by Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru not because he had any special attachment for Kashmir as the “land of his ancestors” as he commonly used to mention it. His primary aim was to weaken Pakistan, which had come into existence as a sovereign State in 1947 against the wishes of the leaders of the Hindu Congress, aka the Indian National Congress. If Nehru’s point is honoured that he accessed Kashmir due to great attachment for latter, as it was the land of his ancestors, then why on earth, did his forces invade Junagarh, Hyderabad and Goa? After all these three states were by no way the lands of his ancestors? The fact is that the point of Kashmir being the land of his ancestors was invented by Nehru and his henchmen only to camouflage the evil and imperialistic designs of India on Kashmir. Kautiliya in his book ‘Arthashastra’ mentions one more thing that lie should be crafted with such zeal and zest that it appears truth to the world and Pundit Nehru during his tenure and now his other followers in India are very honestly and sincerely following his preaching.

It was the historic day of July 19, 1947 when at the residence of Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan in Abi Guzar, Srinagar during an emergency convention, All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference adopted the ‘Resolution for Accession to Pakistan’. In the presence of Abdul Rahim Wani with 59 other prominent leaders in attendance the resolution was presented by Khawaja Ghulam-ud-Din Wani. It was presided over by Chaudhry Hamid Ullah Khan. The genuine representatives of majority of Kashmiris passed this resolution of Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan and it reflected the ambitions of the majority of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, hence was unanimously adopted on the basis that existing religious, geographical, cultural and economic ties and the aspirations of millions of Kashmiri Muslims warranted accession of State with Pakistan. It was a historic movement since it gave the liberation movement a clear objective and goal.

The discovery publishing house New Delhi published a 15 volume book under the title ‘Documents on Kashmir Problem’ in 1991. It’s a culling and compilation of original historic documents i.e. letters, telegrams, treaties and resolutions etc. the other day I was going through its first volume when the dates and chronology of some documents revealed the intentions and aim of the then Indian government. It clearly exposes the Maharaja Hari Singh’s and the Indian government’s nefarious nexus. It shows that the stage was set for the Indian forces landing in the valley. The plan was made immediately after the passing of the resolution by the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference about accession of the State with Pakistan, while the correspondence with the Pakistan government and the authorities was merely a cover up.

It has to be seen that, were the circumstances such that forced the Indians to intrude or it was planned drama which was staged to occupy a Muslim majority state forcibly, despite the majority’s decision in favour of accession to Pakistan? What wrath fell in 100 days that compelled the Indians to criminally push their forces into the Valley on 27 October 1947 and by force occupy Jammu and Kashmir in utter violation of the partition plan and against the wishes of the Kashmiri people?

Amazingly in August 1947, an exchange of telegrams between the Kashmir government and the Pakistani authorities shows that both were interested and agreeing upon a Standstill Agreement on all matters and that is confirmed through a telegram dated August 12, 1947, from Prime Minister, Kashmir State, to Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, States Relations Department, Karachi, where the Prime Minster clearly agrees that “Jammu & Kashmir government would welcome Standstill Agreements with Pakistan on all matters [….]”. The same was warmly reciprocated through a telegram of August 15, 1947, from Foreign Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Karachi, to the Prime Minister Jammu & Kashmir at Srinagar, “Your telegram of the 12th. The Government of Pakistan agrees to have a Standstill Agreement with the Government of Jammu &Kashmir [….]”

Interestingly, when a telegram exchange on the same subject, between the Kashmir Government and the Government of India took place, the reply from India was, “The Government of India would be glad if you or some other minister duly authorized on this behalf could fly to Delhi for negotiating Standstill Agreement between Kashmir Government and Indian Dominion. Early action is desirable to maintain intact existing agreements and administrative arrangements.” The point is that if the Pakistan Government could trust the Kashmir Government’s intentions merely on the basis of a telegram exchanged then what compelled the Indians to ask for an instantaneous one-on-one meeting? In fact, if the wordings of the Indian reply are carefully analysed then the malevolent and malicious intentions are found visibly different from the rest of the context.

Kashmir’s case is a discernible case of historical treachery hence needs a detailed critical analysis.

(To be concluded)