A Historical and Political Perspective of Kashmir Issue

Naghma Mangrio∗

Abstract
The Kashmir issue emerged on the world scene in 1947, after
the British withdrawal from the Indian sub-continent. Before
the partition of the sub-continent, the ruler of Kashmir had
option to decide the future of Kashmir while acceding to either
India or Pakistan. The Maharaja of Kashmir opted for
accession to India thus signing the instrument of accession to
Indian Union. This decision was contested by the government
of Pakistan on the ground that majority of state’s population
was Muslim. The matter was referred to the United Nations
after war broke out between India and Pakistan on Kashmir in
1948. The Kashmir issue is not only the bone of contention
between India and Pakistan, it is also associated with the
peace and stability of South Asia. Given the profound impact
that Kashmir issue has on South Asian security in general and
Indo-Pak relations in particular, it needs to be examined
thoroughly. In order to comprehend the issue objectively, it is
imperative to explore the factors responsible for its creation.
This paper is an effort to trace the origins of the Kashmir
issue, while focusing on the historical and political
perspectives.

Keywords: Kashmir, Sub-continent, Pakistan, India

Origins of the Kashmir Problem

The British Indian Empire was divided into two independent sovereign
states of India and Pakistan in 1947 and it was resolved that the Muslim
majority areas would constitute Pakistan and the non-Muslim majority
areas India. At the time of Independence there were more than 560
Princely states in the Indian sub-continent. It was Indian Independence
Act of 1947 which provided for the creation of the two independent
Dominions of India and Pakistan. Paramountcy was not transferred to the
successor governments but was terminated on August 15, 1947, making
Indian states masters of their destiny. “They could accede to one or the
other Dominion or could live as independent states by making suitable

∗
Dr. Naghma Mangrio, Professor, Department of International Relations
University of Sindh, Jamshoro. Email: [email protected]
A Historical and Political Perspective of Kashmir Issue Naghma Mangrio

political arrangements with their more powerful neighbouring

Dominions”.1
Lord Mount Batten the then Viceroy of India gave some
suggestions regarding the criteria for deciding which of the two
dominions a Princely State should join. He said “Normally geographical
situation and communal interests and so forth will be the factors to be
considered.”2 Subsequently, the states which were contiguous to India
having a majority of non-Muslim population acceded to India with
Hyderabad and Junagadh being the exception. While states, contiguous
to Pakistan with a majority of Muslim population, acceded to Pakistan.
Maharaja of Kashmir wishing to be independent could not decide
immediately. Meanwhile, with the arrival of Indian troops in Kashmir
and rebellion by Muslim population, situation was worsening. This
eventually paved way to the Indian pressure and Maharaja agreed to join
India by signing the controversial Instrument of Accession on 26th
October 1947.
It would be relevant here to have a glance over the letter of Lord
Mount Batten which he wrote to the Maharaja informing him about
acception of his request for accession.
In the special circumstances mentioned by your
Highness, my Government has decided to accept the
accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. In
consistence with their policy that in the case of any State
where the issue of accession has been the subject of
dispute, the question of accession should be decided n
accordance with the wishes of the people of the State, it
is my government’s wish that, as soon as law and order
have been restored in Kashmir, and her soil cleared of
the invaders, the question of the State’s accession should
be settled by a reference to the people.3

Early History
Buddhism was introduced in Kashmir valley in the third century, B.C by
Ashoka. For nearly four centuries, Buddhism prospered and was further
strengthened by Kanisha in the first century A.D. In the sixth century
A.D., Huns gained control of the valley. After that it was Ujjain Empire
in India which extended its control over Kashmir with Vikramaditya as
its strongest ruler. During 697-738 A.D., Hindu rulers found a new
dynasty by combining Hinduism and Buddhism, under “Lalitaditya.
Lalitaditya is still regarded as one of the most celebrated Hindu Kings.”4

The Dialogue 256 Volume VII Number 3

A Historical and Political Perspective of Kashmir Issue Naghma Mangrio

The beginning of Muslim rule

In 1339 A.D. the foundations of Muslim rule were laid in Kashmir when
Rianchin Shah, a Tibetan, embraced Islam and adopted the Muslim name
of Sadruddin. After his death Shahmir of Swat who adopted the name of
Shamsuddin became the first Sultan of Kashmir. “The establishment of
Shah Mir on the throne of Kashmir was not the triumph of an Islamic
Power struggling for supremacy in the state. It was in reality triumph of
the freedom struggle of the people who had been groaning under the
misrule of Hindu Kings.”5 “The rule of Muslims came as a blessing not
only politically but intellectually and spiritually. It popularized Islam in
Kashmir which revolutionalized the thinking of the people and their
whole attitude to life.” Politics had dehumanized the Kashmiris, Islam
made them men again.”6 The first great king of Muslim period was
Shahabu Din who came to the throne in 1354. After restoring peace
within the valley, the king focused his attention on foreign conquests. He
then conquered Baltistan, Ladakh, Kishtwar and Jammu. After the death
of Shahb-ud-Din , Qutub-ud-Din took power. He was followed by
Sikindar. In 1420 another great King, Zain-ul-Abidin famously known as
Bud Shah took the throne. He ruled until 1470. India’s Emperor Akbar
was invited by the people of Kashmir. He conquered Kashmir in 1586.
The Mughals ruled the Valley till 1752 A.D.

The Sikh rule

With the visit of Guru Nanak to the Kashmir valley in 15th century, the
connection between Sikhs and Kashmir began. By the end of the 17th
century, Sikhs were converted into a military theocracy under the Guru
Gobind Singh. As a warrior, he gave the Sikh community its militaristic
traits and organized his guerilla operations against the Mughals. Since
Sikhs were divided under MISALS or clans, they remained without
unity. Ranjeet Singh, belonging to the MISALS of Charan Singh had an
eye on Kashmir. He first made an alliance with Shah Mahmood of
Afghanistan and tried to control Kashmir. The Sikh army proceeded to
Kashmir via Peer Panjal in 1814. In 1819 the Sikhs entered Shupayan
and soon they controlled the valley.
These were the Kashmiris, who first invited Ranjit Singh to
invade the territory to get rid of Durani rule of Kashmir but later they
repent their action and started complaining to Ranjeet Singh about the
conduct of their Governors in Kashmir. Moti Ram’s rule, who was
Ranjeet Singh’s Governor was described by William Moor craft in his
travels as “Everywhere the people are in the most abject condition
exorbitantly taxed by the Sikh Government and subjected to every kind
of extortion and oppression by its officers”7 Moorcraft goes on to say

The Dialogue 257 Volume VII Number 3

A Historical and Political Perspective of Kashmir Issue Naghma Mangrio

“Villages are half deserted and the few habitants that remained wore the
semblance of extreme wretchedness. The poor people are likely to reap
little advantage from their labour, for a troop of tax-gatherers come into a
village and seize nine-tenths of the grain of the farmer for the revenue.
Islamabad (Anant-pur) is swarming with beggars and the inhabitants of
the country around half-naked and miserably emaciated. The Sikh seems
to look upon the Kashmiris as little better than cattle. The murder of a
native by a Sikh is punished with a fine by the Government, of from
sixteen to twenty rupees, of which four rupees are paid to the family of
the deceased if a Hindus and two rupees if a Muslim.”8 Sikhs ruled
Kashmir over a period of twenty seven years which ended in 1839.

The Treaty of Amritser

After the Sikhs were defeated by British in 1846, Gulab Singh a Dogra
Rajput appeared as a dominant figure. He had entered Maharaja Ranjeet
Singh’s service as Raja of Jammu. After Ranjeet Singh’s death, the
relations between East India company and Sikhs deteorated. Sikhs fought
two wars with British, first in December 1845 and the other in February
1846 with subsequent defeat of the Sikhs. “Gulab Singh remained on the
sidelines, offering to help his overlords but failing to give it, at the same
time as keeping in regular contact with the British. Without his support,
Sikh defeat was inevitable.”9
“Treaty of peace of 9th March 1846 between Sikhs and British
was meant to favor Gulab Singh. Instead of paying an indemnity of one
crore of rupees the Sikh were required to cede to the East India company
the provinces of Kashmir and Hazara.”10 On 16th March 1846, the Treaty
of Amritser was signed by the British and Gulab singh. According to this
treaty Kashmir was sold to Gulab Singh for a sum of 75 lacs. Gulab
Singh was also supposed to severe his allegiance from the Sikhs. Gulab
Singh became the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. Ladakh and
Baltistan were also included in his estate.
Many historians share the opinion that although Dogras were the
rulers of Kashmir, “the common Kashmiri people felt that Dogras
considered Jammu as their home and the valley as a conquered
territory”.11 The Treaty of Amritser, consisting of ten articles had no
mention of the rights, interests and future of the people of Kashmir.

Dogras
“The Maharaja was given this bargain Kingdom for two reasons first, he
had assisted the British in making an orderly retreat from the disastrous
British Afghan expedition. Second, at the conclusion of the Anglo-Sikh

The Dialogue 258 Volume VII Number 3

A Historical and Political Perspective of Kashmir Issue Naghma Mangrio

war of 1845 and the defeat of the Lahore Kingdom, Gulab Singh had
indicated that he would protect British interests in the Punjab.”12
The crisis in Kashmir began with the handing over of Kashmir to
the Dogras. Gulab Singh under Wazir Lakhpat sent some troops to take
the valley into possession. The Governor Shaikh Imam-ud-Din resisted
and refused to surrender. A fight ensued between the Kashmiris and
Dogras in which Gulab Singh’s troops were defeated and Wazir Lakhpat
was assassinated. Thus in 1846, the present state of Jammu and Kashmir
including Ladakh, Baltistan and Gilgit was established.
Prem N Bazaz has aptly said that: “Dogras were different from
earlier rulers of Kashmir in that they were themselves vessels of another
power i.e. the Bristish. They established a sort of Dogra imperialism in
the state in which the Dogra’s were elevated to the position of the
masters and all non-Dogra communities and classes were given the
humble places of inferiors.”13
He goes on to say “ By coming under the British Suzerainty the
valley began to have the impact of Western ideas and modern civilization
which finally awakened the people to demand their birth-right of
independence and freedom.”14
Ian Copland summarized the situation of the Muslim community
in the State in following words: “Though they comprised 53 percent of
the population in the southern or Jammu Province and upwards of 93
percent in the more populous northern or Kashmir province, the Muslims
were a community without wealth or influence. At the policy making
level, power was shared between the dynastic ruler Maharaja Hari Singh
and four man executive council which in 1931 consisted of the
Maharaja’s brother, two British officers loaned by the Government of
India, and a Sikh. In the bureaucracy, Hindus and Sikhs held seventy-
eight percent of gazetted appointments compared to the Muslims’
twenty-two percent. At the local government level the disparity was less
marked over all but non-Muslims still dominated, specially in Jammu for
instance, Tehsildarse of Kotli and Rajouri, the Nibe Tehsildarse of
Bhimber, Naoshera, Kotli and Rajouri, Superintendent and Deputy
Superintendent of Police at Kotli and nearly all the Magistrates were
either Sikhs or Hindus, while in Mirpur Tehsil it was estimated that 94
percent of Patwaries were Kashmiri Brahmins.”15
Maharaja Hari Singh, the last Dogra ruler succeeded to the
throne in 1925. During his rule also, Kashmiris felt highly alienated thus
giving rise to the movement known as “Kashmir for the Kashmiris”
encouraged by educated class of Kashmiris. Soon voices from different
segments of the society were raised against the policies of Maharaja Hari
Singh. Prominent among these was Shaikh Mohammad Abdullah , an

The Dialogue 259 Volume VII Number 3

A Historical and Political Perspective of Kashmir Issue Naghma Mangrio

Aligarh educated Kashmiri. This was the time when political unrest in
the valley was beginning. He joined Reading Room Party and became
famous as “Lion of Kashmir”. Later Abdullah founded a political party
the All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim conference in 1932.
By this time the people of Kashmir stood up for the first time
and protested against the atrocities of Maharaja Hari Singh. Agitations
started against the Maharaja’s rule and a demand for basic political rights
was put forward. Maharaja took efforts to crush the Muslim uprising.
During early 1930’s two major incidents took place which added fuel to
the already alarming situation.
The first incident occurred in Jammu on the occasion of Eid
Prayers on 29th April 1931. The Imam while delivering the Eid sermon
narrated the cruelties committed by the pharoh of Egypt on Moses and
his community and how Moses eventually emancipated the Bani Israel
from the bondage of the Pharoh.”16. The Hindu sub-inspector of police
Khem Chand considered this was an attack on the Hindu Maharaja.
Infact the Imam narrated the story routinely and was not aware of its
repercussions. The police officer intervened and tried to stop the sermon.
This was taken by Muslims as unnecessary interference in their religious
affairs.
Another incident took place when a Muslim constable was
reciting the Holy Quran in his barrack in Jammu. His Hindu colleague
Labboo Ram felt irritated by the recital. Snatching the Holy Book, he
threw it down in anger. This resulted in exchange of severe language
between them. “This news spread like wild fire. It provided added fuel to
the fire of discontent already aflame in Muslim hearts.”17 Further “a
mosque was demolished in Riasi and there was growing interference in
offering prayers in Degwar and Kotli.”18 This caused Muslims to protest
vocally.

Partition of the Sub-Continent

Mount Batten Plan was published on 3rd June 1947. According to the
plan the sub-continent of India was to become independent on 15th of
August 1947. Subsequently according to Indian independence Act of
1947, British India was divided into two independent countries i.e. India
and Pakistan. To Kashmiris the establishment of Pakistan was matter of
joy, who thought that they are now close to achieve their destiny i.e.
liberation from cruel Hindu Dogra Raj.
According to the provisions of the independence act, the rulers
of all independent states were given the choice to join either India or
Pakistan. Maharaja of Kashmir apparently adopted a neutral stand and
signed a standstill agreement with Pakistan. In pursuance of that

The Dialogue 260 Volume VII Number 3

A Historical and Political Perspective of Kashmir Issue Naghma Mangrio

agreement, the management of the line of railway owned by the

Government of Jammu and Kashmir and of the postal and the telegraphic
services and customs in the state continued to vest in the Government of
Pakistan.

Accession to India
Before partition of the sub-continent many leaders tried to persuade the
Maharaja for accession of Kashmir to India. Among these were Mr.
Acharya Kirpalani, the President of Indian Congress, Maharajas of Farid
Kot, Kapurthala, Patiala and the rulers of the Punjab Hill States, who had
already decided to accede to India. In June 1947 Lord Mount Batten also
went to Kashmir with the same plans. He was followed by Gandhi. All
the efforts were without success except one as the state Prime Minister
Ram Chandra Kak, who was in favour of independent Kashmir was
replaced by a Dogra, Janak Singh. “Later by the middle of the October,
Prime Minister Janak Singh was replaced by the Indian Congress
nominee Mehr Chand Mahajan with the promise that military aid could
be made available to him at his discretion.”19
Maharaja under a plan, ordered the Muslim population to disarm
themselves. At the same time he started pouring Hindus and Sikhs from
East Punjab to Kashmir. The people of Kashmir protested against the
Maharaja’s attempt to disarm the Muslims. “A guerrilla movement was
started which drew its strength from the nearly 70,000 Poonchis who had
served in the British Indian army during the 2nd World War”.20
The atrocities jointly perpetrated by forces of Maharaja and the
bands of Sikh and Hindus provocated the passions of the Muslims of
Kashmir and Pakistan. This led to the incursion by the tribesmen from
the tribal areas of Pakistan into Kashmir on October 22, 1947 to help
their co-religionists in trouble.

The Genesis of the Issue

There are many factors which could be taken into account while
analyzing the history of Kashmir and finding the root cause of the issue.
The dispute began with the partition of the British Indian Empire in
August 1947 into two independent states Pakistan and India.
The Viceroy of India Lord Mount Batten suggested some
guiding principles for the princely states in order to accede to India or
Pakistan. He advised the rulers to decide for accession while keeping in
mind the geographical position of their states and the wishes of the
people. Since paramountcy was not transferred to the successor
governments but was terminated on 15th August 1947, Indian States in
principle should have to be independent. And if the option of being

The Dialogue 261 Volume VII Number 3

A Historical and Political Perspective of Kashmir Issue Naghma Mangrio

independent was given, many of the states could have opted for that,
including Kashmir as the Maharaja of Kashmir was interested to be
independent.
As far as the Kashmiri people were concerned they had natural
interest in allying themselves with Pakistan. “At the time of the transfer
of power, Muslims constituted about 78% of the entire population and
around 93% in the valley itself. Kashmir had religious and cultural
affinities with Pakistan. It has over nine hundred mile border with
Pakistan.”21 Besides this there were many other factors which linked the
Kashmir closely to Pakistan. This clearly shows that Lord Mount Batten
accepted the accession against the interests of the people of Kashmir.
Moreover, Lord Mount Batten’s role in fixing the boundaries
between India and Pakistan cannot be ignored. India would not have had
any land route to Kashmir. The boundary commission under Sir Red
Cliff, placed the district of Gurdaspur a Muslim majority district to India.
In this way a land link to Kashmir was provided to India. This became
another cause of resentment among the Muslims of Kashmir and the
Pakistan as well.

Kashmir’s accession to India not acceptable to Pakistan

The accession of Kashmir by Maharaja is the main argument on which
the Indian Government bases its claim on Kashmir. The letter of
Maharaja and Lord Mount Batten’s reply were never accepted by
Pakistan as the valid basis for Kashmir’s accession to India.
Maharaja’s capacity to offer accession while in flight, his
authority to control the territory and the conditions within Kashmir have
been questioned by many. It has been widely acknowledged now, that
there was a freedom movement at its peak in Kashmir, Maharaja had lost
the control over large part of Kashmir, he was not enjoying the support
of the masses. His forces were dispersed and he himself was leaving the
Kashmir. In these circumstances the letter of Maharaja offering the
accession of Kashmir to India and the acceptance of this offer by India
does not constitute a valid reason for accession of the state to India.

Conclusion
Historically speaking Kashmir had been ruled by different dynasties.
From the 14th century onward it was ruled by Muslims. Then it came
under Sikhs, Afghans and then Dogras. Before 1846, Kashmir was part
of Sikh empire. Kashmir was sold to Maharaja Gulab Singh in that year
under the Treaty of Amritsar. Maharaja Gulab Singh ruled Kashmir in a
ruthless way. Oppressed people of Kashmir resisted against the cruel
ruler Hari Singh as they had been in the past. During partition of the sub

The Dialogue 262 Volume VII Number 3

A Historical and Political Perspective of Kashmir Issue Naghma Mangrio

continent, states were given the choice to accede to either India or

Pakistan.
Maharaja of Kashmir could not decide immediately after the
partition. The people of Kashmir being in majority wanted to accede to
Pakistan. Meanwhile with the arrival of Indian troops in the valley and
tribal men from Pakistan, situation deteriorated. Maharaja eventually
signed the controversial instrument of accession with India on 27
October 1947.
Since Indian claims on Kashmir are based on the Instrument of
Accession, the validity of this document becomes of vital importance to
this issue. Three factors can be taken into account, firstly Indian
argument that Maharaja willingly acceded to India, secondly timings of
signing the Instrument of Accession. Based on the above mentioned two
is the third factor i.e. whether Indian troops arrived before signing of the
Instrument of Accession thus rendering them illegal.
Apart from the question of validity or invalidity of Instrument of
accession another element which has been overlooked throughout the
history is the people of Kashmir. The will of the people has never been
consulted as was pledged by India itself and under the auspices of the
United Nations.
What Kashmir needs today is a generally agreed settlement with
wishes of the Kashmiri people as central. If this could not be achieved a
solution to the Kashmir issue is unseen in times to come.

The Dialogue 263 Volume VII Number 3

A Historical and Political Perspective of Kashmir Issue Naghma Mangrio

Notes & References

1
Justice (Rtd.) Shah Nasim Hassan, Kashmir and International Law, Pakistan
Horizon, Volume 15 No. 1 and 2 Area Study Centre for Europe (Karachi:
University of, 1999), 1
2
Azami Aqil Ahmed, Kashmir: An Unparalleled Curfew (Karachi: Zyzza
Publishing, 1990), 38
3
Quoted in Aijaz Hussain, Kashmir Dispute: An International Law perspective,
(Lahore: Al Majeed Printers, 1993), 48
4
Schofield Victoria, Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan and the Unending
War (New York: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd., 2003), 3
5
Bazaz Prem Nath, The History of Struggle for freedom in Kashmir (New Delhi:
Kashmir publishing company, 1954), 49
6
Bazaz Prem Nath, The History of Struggle for freedom in Kashmir, op.cit., 49
7
ibid.
8
ibid.
9
Schofield Victoria, Kashmir in conflict: India, Pakistan and Unending War,
op.cit., 6
10
ibid.
11
ibid.
12
Kadian Rajesh, The Kashmir Tangle: Issues and options (Boulder: West
View, 1993), 97
13
Bazaz Prem Nath, The History of Struggle for freedom in Kashmir, op.cit.,
127
14
ibid.
15
Quoted in Ganguly Sumit, The Crises In Kashmir: Portents of War, Hopes of
Peace, (U.K: Woodrow Wilson Center and Cambridge University Press, 1997),
6
16
ibid.
17
ibid.
18
Aijaz Hussain, Kashmir Dispute: An International Law perspective, op.cit., 8
19
ibid.
20
ibid.
21
Azmi Aqil Ahmed, Kashmir: An Unparalleled Curfew, op.cit, 38

The Dialogue 264 Volume VII Number 3