By M.C. Chagla

Kashmir is not a part of India as a consequence of conquest. It is not even a matter of one community hegemonising over another community. It is from time immemorial that Kashmir has been a part and parcel of India. From the stand-point of race and sociology the Indians and the Kashmiris are one and undifferentiated. Though Muslims in this part of India constitute a majority yet this majority adheres to the same religious creed that is held by five crore Muslims of India.

This constitutes the fundamental difference between India and Pakistan. Pakistan wants to own the Kashmiris on the basis of commonality of religion. It does not own them on the plank of nationalism, race, common traditions and historical experiences. We bitterly oppose the doctrine that does not differentiate between religion and secularism. People harbouring diverse faiths and religions live in complete harmony in this country. They enjoy the fundamental right of equality before law.

In general terms the Indian Muslims are not a minority. Five crore people are merged in the population of this country. They are the natives of this land. They are Indians from sociological viewpoint. They have the full citizenship rights. They can lay claim to any post and position. The reality is that in India many Muslims are on positions of power and pelf. Our culture is synthetic and syncretic in features. In the weaving of cultural mosaic, Muslims have a definitive role. Ours is a secular state. Men of divergent faiths have equal opportunities and enjoy protection of law. We do not have first rate and second rate citizens. Before law all are equal and do not get discriminated.

Kashmir became an indivisible part of India when the ruler of Kashmir signed the instrument of accession and the same was assented to by Lord Mountbatten, the then Governor General of India.

As per the Independence Act of India passed by the British Parliament, the ruler of a state was invested with the right to accede to either of the two nascent dominions in accordance with his wishes. It is quite important to mention that the Independence Act did not provide for the ascertainment of the views of the state population. India as is well-known did not subscribe to the two nation theory grounded in religion. Despite it, the country was divided in the name of religion. On 3rd June, 1947 the British government declared that the British India alone would be vivisected, not the princely states. Thus the ruler of Kashmir alone was empowered to make the choice regarding the mergences of Kashmir into India.

Till 15th Aug, 1947 most of the rulers of the states took a prompt decision on the issue of accession. But the ruler of Kashmir prevaricated and did not settle the issue expeditiously. Instead he entered into a stand still agreement with India and Pakistan on communications, post offices and other allied subjects to maintain the status quo. But Pakistan resorted to the policy of exerting pressure on the ruler of Kashmir for mergence into Pakistan. Under the aegis of Pakistan army, the Kabali hordes launched an all-out attack on Kashmir. The state troops were incapable of meeting the offensive. The ruler of Kashmir petitioned the Indian government to accept Kashmir’s accession to India which was endorsed by the National Conference as the popular political party. The Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, nodded his consent to the letter of request. It is in this setting Kashmir’s accession to India took place. Now, Kashmir is an inalienable part of India.

On January 1st, 1948, India filed a plaint in the Security Council against Pakistan aggression on the soil of India. It is worth attention that Pakistan had aggressed us and we were the petitioners. On December 22, 1947 the Indian Prime Minister despatched an official communication to the Prime Minister of Pakistan requesting him to desist from supporting the invading hordes in their brutal aggression. In reply to the communication, the Pakistan Prime Minister wrote that his government was doing its level best to pacify the Kabaili hordes. On January 25, 1948, the Pakistan Foreign Minister, backtracking from the earlier governmental position, said that Pakistan government was in no way lending support to the invaders. What deserves attention is that on both the occasions Pakistan did not in any way object to the Indian Act of despatching troops to Kashmir. It did not try to justify its presence in Kashmir nor did it refer to the claims of Pakistan in Kashmir. It did not challenge the accession of Kashmir to India. Pakistan was in know of the verity that its presence in Kashmir was against all known canons of international law. So it did not try to justify its act in Kashmir. This fact establishes that Pakistan stand that it went to support the freedom movement in Kashmir is a white lie. It put on a false cloak of morality to conceal its heinous act of aggression.

India received a reply on January 15th, 1948 from the United Nations to the plaint that it had filed on January 1st, 1948. The Pakistan government in its note to the United Nations was blatant in telling that India had secured the accession of Kashmir through fraud and violence. As per law, if fraud and violence are not proved, in that case accession is completely valid and binding.

In reference to fraud and violence it needs be made plain clear that on behalf of Government of India Lord Mountbatten had conveyed to the Maharaja that if he wished, he could accede to Pakistan and the same would not be construed as an unfriendly act. This also must be kept in view that Pakistan equally admits that not a single Indian soldier put his foot on the Kashmir soil till the accession of Kashmir to India was a fact in law and deed. It was actually Pakistan which unleashed a deluge of violence in Kashmir. The fact remains that violence and fraud unleashed by Pakistan forced the Maharaja’s hands to sign the document of accession with India.

Another point raised by Pakistan was that India got the instrument of accession signed by the Maharaja at a time when people had revolted against him and his rule in Kashmir had nearly dwindled and eclipsed. All this is a malicious canard. It was at the instigation of Pakistan government that the tribal hordes aggressed the land of Kashmir. The Pakistan army lent full-scale support to these tribal invaders. Due to this aggression the Maharaja was compelled to seek for assistance from India at this hour of severe crisis. Kashmir unconditionally acceded to India.

Pakistan often states that the autocratic ruler of Kashmir signed the instrument of accession. Pakistan should explain if those rulers who acceded to Pakistan were wedded to democracy and were democratically elected by the common people.

The validity of Maharaja’s act of signing the instrument of accession cannot be challenged on the grounds of religion. India never subscribed to the view that the Hindus and the Muslims are two separate nations. Kashmir is the guarantee of our secularism and a symbol of it too.

Kashmir is an inalienable part of India. It is a member of the Indian federal structure. To defend it against aggression is our prime duty and responsibility in the same manner as it is the responsibility of Government of India to maintain law and order in Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta or any other component of India.

It is often forgotten that Pakistan came to the Security Council as an aggressor. It still maintains its tight choke-hold over a large portion of Kashmir. It has defied the Security Council. Now it does not only consider its aggression on Kashmir as lawful, but also, has the temerity to challenge Kashmir’s accession to India. The Security Council had accepted the fact of Kashmir’s accession to India. It was on this plea that the presence of Pakistan in Kashmir was proclaimed as unlawful and in contravention of international law.

Now Pakistan is presenting its role and the Indian positions on Kashmir from distorted perspectives. Under the guise of innocence it attributes aggressive motives to us. Pakistan has been an aggressor throughout the Kashmir dispute. It is an aggressor even today. It has continued with its aggression. It does not have any right to complain against India gathering its act of defending its inalienable part of territory against aggression.

In reality, the status of Kashmir or Kashmir’s emergence into India is not a moot issue. The real issue is Pakistan’s aggression on Indian territory. The aggression that was launched in 1947 continues unabated even now. If Security Council is keen to take up the Kashmir problem for debate, it must discuss the aggression of Pakistan on Kashmir and the methodologies for its withdrawal.

India hopes that after debating the problem with all seriousness, the Security Council will answer the following questions:-

*How has Pakistan grabbed 2/5 of Kashmir territory? Does it have a right over it?

*Does Pakistan have any right to grab any territory of Kashmir?

*Does it have a right to cede two thousand sq. miles of Kashmir territory to China?