An Overview of the Kashmir Conflict

There is nothing unsaid or unwritten about the Kashmir conflict. However, given my Kashmiri ancestry, I feel compelled to blog about this conflict. In this post, I will provide a factual overview, and in a follow-up post, I will share my thoughts about this contentious issue.

The Kashmir conflict began after the dissolution of the British Empire in India. British India had a split administrative structure—Britain directly administered large parts of the country and indirectly controlled 584 princely states through subsidiary alliances.

In August 1947, Britain partitioned the territories it directly administered, but not the princely states, into two independent countries: Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan. The princely states had the option to accede to India or Pakistan or remain independent.

Jawaharlal Nehru became the prime minister of India, and Mohammed Ali Jinnah the governor-general of Pakistan. Both leaders were beloved and trusted representatives of their countries. Louis Mountbatten, the last chief administrator of British India, stayed as independent India’s governor-general.

On what basis should a princely state accede to India or Pakistan? Mountbatten, Nehru, and Jinnah agreed that the rulers of the states should decide. This basis made legal sense, given that monarchs are legal representatives of their states. However, in some cases, it would not make democratic sense. It would be problematic in states where the ruler was a Hindu and the population predominantly Muslim, and vice versa.

One such problematic state, Jammu & Kashmir, bordered India and Pakistan. Hari Singh, a Hindu ruled the state; however, the majority (75%+) population was Muslim.

At the time of India’s independence, Hari Singh was grappling with an ongoing anti-monarchy movement in the Kashmir Valley that had gained traction since the late 1930s. Sheikh Abdullah, who had emerged as a mass leader of Kashmiri Muslims, led this movement. He envisaged a democratic rule in an independent Kashmir that presumably he would head.

As of mid-August 1947, an undecided Hari Singh had not acceded to India or Pakistan. At that juncture, Jinnah actively lobbied him to join Pakistan.

Later, when it appeared that Hari Singh might accede to India, Pakistan turned aggressive. In October 1947, Pakistan dispatched thousands of armed tribal insurgents to take over J&K by force.

Hari Singh’s forces crumbled under the tribal onslaught. When the tribal militia started closing in on the capital city, Srinagar, a beleaguered Hari Singh, sought India’s help.

Mountbatten responded that India would send its troops only if Hari Singh acceded to India. Hari Singh agreed and signed the instrument of accession on October 26, 1947. This document is a key inanimate actor in the Kashmir conflict.

Mountbatten accepted the accession of Kashmir to India. He, however, wrote to Hari Singh that after normalcy returned, the people of Kashmir should ratify the accession. This provision was not part of the legal accession document, though.

Post accession, Indian troops secured Srinagar and battled the tribal invaders in other sectors. Meanwhile, Hari Singh left the state for good. His son Karan Singh became the constitutional head, and Sheikh Abdullah became the prime minister of Jammu & Kashmir (October 1947).

In May 1948, Pakistan doubled down on the tribal invasion with the direct involvement of its regular army. The resulting war ended with a ceasefire on January 1, 1949. As of that date, one-third of J&K was under Pakistan, and the rest was under India. This territorial demarcation represents the “Line of Control,” which now is the international border between India and Pakistan.

During the protracted (1948-1949) war, the two countries debated the issue at the United Nations, where the UN ruled that it would hold and supervise a plebiscite in Kashmir.

However, India and Pakistan could not agree on the operational aspects of the plebiscite.  The UN resolution stipulated that to have a fair plebiscite, all Pakistani insurgents must leave J&K —Pakistan did not meet this requirement. Likewise, India was unwilling to reduce its troops in J&K for the plebiscite implementation in a demilitarized environment.

The discussions regarding a plebiscite continued between India and Pakistan until 1953. However, none of the multiple plebiscite proposals discussed fructified.

Meanwhile, in 1953, India dismissed Sheikh Abdullah as prime minister of J&K. The Indian Government charged Sheikh Abdullah with conspiring with Pakistan to free Kashmir and imprisoned him for 11 years.

In 1954, Pakistan signed a military pact with the United States. This pact drove Nehru to withdraw India’s offer to participate in a plebiscite.

Pakistan and India’s positions on Kashmir solidified by the mid-1950s. India contends that Kashmir legally acceded to it. Pakistan maintains that a Muslim-majority border state should be its part.

After the Indo-Pak 1971 war, India and Pakistan signed a peace treaty, the Simla Agreement. The negotiations leading to this treaty were the closest that India and Pakistan got to put a lid on the Kashmir conflict but did not go all the way. The two countries agreed that they would resolve the Kashmir issue bilaterally.

Following Pakistan’s rout in the 1971 war, Sheikh Abdullah grew conciliatory toward the Indian Government. In 1975, he signed an accord with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, wherein he gave up on his demand for a plebiscite in Kashmir. Subsequently, he became chief minister of J&K and served until he died in 1982.

Pakistan never let go of the Kashmir issue. Pakistani military and political leaders have all along kept Kashmir a prominent agendum in Pakistan’s public discourse and international fora.

In the 1980s, Pakistan’s army chief and later president, Zia-ul-Haq, adopted the doctrine of “bleed India with a thousand cuts.” This doctrine gave birth to anti-India militancy and terrorism in Kashmir in the late 1980s that have yet to end. The insurgency sponsored by Pakistan and relentlessly countered by India has resulted in the loss of thousands of lives and the exodus of the Hindu population from Kashmir.

In 2019, the Indian Government abrogated Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. This article was included in India’s constitution in 1949 to provide special status to Jammu & Kashmir within the ambit of the Indian Union. From India’s perspective, the abrogation of Article 370 erased the last symbolic vestige of the disputed and special nature of Kashmir.

Comments and Notes

The aspects of the Kashmir conflict summarized above have been debated and discussed ad nauseam. It is difficult to capture the intricate details and different nuances of this conflict in a simple overview.

J&K was the largest, by area, princely state in British India. Undivided Kashmir included the Kashmir Valley in India and an adjoining region, which is now in Pakistan. Besides Kashmir, where the population was overwhelmingly Muslim, the state included the Jammu region, with a majority Hindu population, and the sparsely populated Ladakh region with a majority Buddhist population.

After the Indo-Pak War of 1948-1949, India controlled about two-thirds of the erstwhile princely J&K State. Later, in the Sino-Indian War of 1962, India lost a large tract of territory to China. Now, about one-half of the princely J&K State is part of India.

The restive part of J&K is a relatively small geographical region—10 districts, which are about one-third of the area of Haryana State. Among the 10 districts, three districts (Anantnag, Baramulla, and Srinagar) are the hotbed of insurgency.

Why did Jinnah favor that the rulers of the princely states take the call regarding their accession? Because he coveted Hyderabad and Junagadh, two Hindu-majority states with Muslim rulers. He probably believed that Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan would be a cakewalk.

The outcome of a plebiscite would have been against India. Thus, India had reason to find fault with and reject different plebiscite proposals. Pakistan, however, should have grabbed the opportunities that came its way; it squandered them.

Because Sheikh Abdullah had the power to sway the plebiscite, Jinnah was wary of him. Jinnah perceived Abdullah to be an Indian stooge—this was a misperception.

Dictionary (Merriam-Webster) meanings:

• Plebiscite: a vote by which the people of an entire country or district express an opinion for or against a proposal especially on a choice of government or ruler
• Referendum: the principle or practice of submitting to a popular vote a measure passed on or proposed by a legislative body or by popular initiative.