Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria University College, Wellington N.Z. Vol. 21, No. 3. April 1, 1958

Kashmir

page 6

Kashmir

One of the world's problem areas is the remote and mountainous province of Kashmir. This Asian "Switzerland of lofty snow-clad peaks and beautiful valleys lies jammed in between China, Tibet and Afghanistan. Seventy-seven per cent. of the State's four million inhabitants are Moslems, the remainder being Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists. At present Pakistan holds the mountain territories of Kashmir, containing less than a third of the population. The bulk of the people dwell in the Indian-held Valley of Kashmir.

When the British left India Kashmir, being a princely State, was entitled to decide for herself whether she would join India or Pakistan. Despite the fact that four-fifths of the people were of Moslem faith the Maharajah and the ruling elixir were all Hindus. Naturally enough the Maharajah chose to join India. There followed a fourteen-month war between the Indian army on the one hand and Pathan Moslem tribesmen and Pakistani regulars on the other. The Indians came off best and were in possession of two-thirds of the State when the United Nations succeededin arranging a cease-fire in January, 1949.

Since the cease-fire was arranged India has ignored all democratic ideals in ruling Kashmir. At first Nehru, whose family originated in Kashmir, was content to rule the State through the Moslem Sheik, Mohammed Abdullah. Know as the Lion of Kashmir, this 6ft. 4in. sheik first won popular support by his long struggle against the wicked and corrupt Maharajah's rule. But in 1953 he fell out with Nehru through talk about forming an independent Kashmir or a possible link with Pakistan. Now this was the one thing that Nehru, for all his talk about democracy and peace, could not stand. Even today it is sedition for a Kashmiri to advocate secession from India. The result was that Mohammed Abdullah was arrested and thrown into jail without trial. Until January he was in custody in a lonely guarded house high up in the mountains at Kud, but has now been released. This sordid affair shows Nehru in his true colours. Undoubtedly no man loves peace more than he. But although he may be outstanding as a champion of co-existence he is no democrat. This is also very apparent in his famous remark about United Nations—"We are not bound by resolutions which are against our country and our interest." As for the Lion of Kashmir, he must be added to the long list of political prisoners who have languished in the prisons of the world.

Since the overthrow of Sheik Mohammed Abdullah, India has ruled Kashmir as a near-police-state through Premier Baskshi Mohammed's pro-Delhi Party, the National Conference. There is every sign that the election held in Kashmir in March last year was rigged. The pro-Pakistan parties boycotted the election, and nine Socialist and five other nomination papers were rejected on the most flimsy of technical grounds. Earlier last year a hand-picked Kashmiri Constituent Assembly adopted a Constitution whose third article reads, "Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India." Having performed the task for which it was created the Constituent Assembly has since dissolved itself. This action of India's can only be compared to China's gobbling up of Tibet or Britain's brutal suppression of nationalism in Cyprus. Five times India has ignored Security Council resolutions calling for a plebiscite in Kashmir. On the last occasion India's delegate added to his unpopularity by making a marathon speech lasting seven hours forty-eight minutes.

India rests its case on the theory that Kashmir's accession is based on a British' Parliament Act and on the grounds that the people are economically better off under Indian rule. Nehru and Menon claim that Kashmir's accession to India was in accordance with the provisions of the English Act of Succession. They claim that the decision of the Hindu Maharajah constitutes an irrevocable act that has settled the destiny of Kashmir once and for all. What they omit to mention is that when the Moslem leader of predominantly Hindu Hyderabad was opposed to joining India the Indian army seized the State by force. Nehru cannot have it both ways. If he was right on the Hyderabad issue he is wrong in his stand over Kashmir.

Undoubtedly, the people of Kashmir enjoy economic benefits under India which they could not possibly hope to enjoy under not-so-wealthy Pakistan. Education is free and compulsory. Today there are 2,000 primary schools, 100 high schools and twelve colleges in the State. Rice is the cheapest in Asia.

Prostitution is unknown and beggars are few and far between. Unpopular customs duties and grain levies have been abolished. Most important of all, the pesant, by and large, now owns his own land. This has been achieved by drastic land reform measures—the finest thing that Nehru has done for Kashmir. Under the Landed Estates Abolition Act of 1950, a ceiling of 22¾ acres was imposed on the ownership of all land except orchards and pastures. All land in excess of this figure was confiscated and distributed among tenants cultivating the land subject to a maximum of twenty acres each. None-the-less no amount of reform can justify the imposition of foreign rule upon a country contrary to the wishes of its inhabitants. The best argument that India can produce against the holding of a plebiscite in Kashmir is that it could lead to violence and riots. No one desires a return to the conditions of 1947 when hundreds of thousands of Moslems and Hindus were killed in maniacal outbursts of hatred. There is no doubt that the pro-Pakistan element would conduct a plebiscite on a purely religious and emotional basis. It would be a campaign for the Moslems of Kashmir to unite with their brethren of Pakistan. There might not be any trouble in Kashmir itself if the plebiscites were policed by United Nations troops. But there is the problem of no protection for the 40 million Moslems living in India as a minority group or the 90 billion Hindus in Pakistan. It was for this reason that 36 Moslem members of the. Indian Parliament recently approached their fellow believers, in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan asking them to stop interfering with the Kashmir question.

Pakistan's claim to Kashmir has a moral basis—the fundamental understanding that created India and Pakistan. According to this tacit agreement Pakistan was to have had in her territory those areas with a predominantly Moslem population. So Kashmir with its 77% Moslem population should belong to Pakistan. Pakistan's stand is obviously right. All that it calls for is the holding of the plebiscite so that the people of Kashmir can decide their own future. Her stand is supported by the United Nations Security Council and every person who is a democrat at heart.

At the moment it looks as though Kashmir is to remain a divided state. All resolutions passed by the Security Council are contemptuously ignored in the same way as the resolutions over Hungary. It seems then that only a war of conquest by Pakistan could wrest the Valley of Kashmir from India. To this length Pakistan is not prepared to go.

—T.J.K.