The delayed accession

Col J P Singh, Retd
History of our fantasy paradise and a wonderland of Himalayas is very interesting. Independence should have brought joy and celebrations for J&K but the preceding partition brought a gloom. Princely state of Jammu & Kashmir acceded to Indian Union on 26 October 1947, little later than 15 August 1947 when attacked by Pakistan to annex it by force. That makes its history interesting. Why Maharaja Hari Singh did not accede to India or Pakistan on or before 14 August 1947 is an issue under debate. If it was done before 15 August, what would have been the consequences on the history and geography of J&K, is yet to be answered. History has the answer to all the questions, however difficult they may be, provided they are posed correctly and answered honestly. If we do not, the realities are bound to fade in the recesses of the time and individual fantasies are bound to overshadow realities as has been the case. Another fact yet to be unraveled is that it were the British who were keen to manage Kashmir after partition.
Why the ruler delayed accession raises questions. The motive behind the delayed accession is said to be his desire to remain independent. The importance of accession for British  lay in J&K being a Muslim majority state contiguous to Pakistan and becoming an absolute sovereign on 15 August 1947 like UK. Anything done by the ruler after that could not be questioned by them because of end of paramountacy. For the ruler, the importance of accession of his empire lay in its creation, inheritance and location. Considering its location first, it was situated just North of traditional invasion routes into India from the Western frontiers. Control over J&K protected the Northern flank of the invading armies. Through North-western reaches of J&K (now Northern Areas in POJK) passed some of the well trodden ‘Caravan Trade Routes’. From centuries past, human migration, conflicts and invasions had travelled these links between the lands to its West, the North, and riches of India to the South. In the reverse, the access to J&K also held out the prospect of very rich mineral and energy resources of Central Asia.  More than that, it opened both windows of observation and access to vast areas of actual or potential discards and conflicts. British were particularly very sensitive to a threat from expansionist Czarist Russia to their Indian empire. Moreover Aksai Chin Plateau jutting out to the Northeast was the only easily negotiable land link between Xinjiang Region of China and Tibetan Plateau over which J&K had its suzerainty. In consequences the Highlands of Ladakh and Gilgit were not only important to the ruler but were of global strategic value. Despite above geo-physical formulations, the Indian policy makers were either blissfully unaware of geo-strategic advantages of control over the state or unwilling to act with firm vigour to secure vital national interests. No efforts were made to reach out to Maharaja Hari Singh to accede to India. This indeed was a grave failure, the effects of which still linger on to bedevil Indian foreign policy and national security. Credit must go to the visionary warrior, Maharaja Gulab Singh, the founder ruler, for having created an independent vast empire in the Northwestern region and extending its boundaries upto Afghanistan, Russia, China and Tibet thus providing a strong buffer to vast Indian sub-continent. Maharaja Hari Singh’s loyalty lay to his ancestors, the subjects and not the aliens. He was committed to uphold the sovereignty of the state of his inheritance and prosperity of his subjects. Despite his many virtues, Pt Nehru did not appreciate strategic importance of J&K. He thus failed to ensure a secure future for the nation as its 1st prime minister. Can the ruler be blamed for other’s follies?
In pursuance of their plan to divide and rule, British abetted insurrection in the state to exploit diversity. While engineering division of India they supposedly promised Kashmir to Jinnah. Lord Mountbatten visited Kashmir in June 1947 to discuss accession. Mountbatten’s stand on accession of Princely States was well known which was ‘geographical contiguity’ and ‘religion of majority of subjects’ and in case of doubt, the views of people to prevail. Maharaja, knowing Mountbatten’s intent of advising him in favour of Pakistan, did not meet him formally. Meeting him would mean accepting his directions. Hence it became clear that Maharaja did not wish to accede to Pakistan. Hence besides combination of blandishment and coercion, tribal operation was conceived and executed to gain control of this strategic state by military action.
The other issue was characteristics of the State. J&K was complex in terrain, climate, religions, languages, ethnicity and culture. Some districts had 10-15 spoken languages and every 10-15 miles, culture and ethnicity changed. It was indeed a model of unity in diversity. While Rashtrapati continues advising political leaders to seriously grapple with the challenges of unity in diversity; Muslim and Dogra rulers had ruled J&K with perfect harmony despite other odds. The period preceding the participation, saw the sub-continent engulfed in communal strife, riots and unprecedented bloodshed on top of which various games were played to get J&K into the Pakistan camp. If anything went wrong in J&K, it was a British mischief.
Lot of initiatives were taken to lure the ruler. The first was to lure him for a complete merger. Should he not agree immediately, he was to be encouraged to decide in favour of independence. An independent Jammu and Kashmir was considered to be dependent on Pakistan for almost all his needs for food, fuel and marketing. It was not expected to survive as an independent entity for long. Maharaja also wanted time to decide about the future of his state. To gain that time, on 12th August 1947, he offered a ‘standstill agreement’ to both dominions. India demurred but Pakistan signed it.  Obviously time was on the side of Pakistan, longer the Maharaja procrastinated, the more likely he was to opt for independence. His prime minister R C Kak was instigating him to declare independence. Mr. Kak was married to a Scottish national. He was cosily netted with British establishment. His sympathies lay with British thinking of making state as part of Pakistan. When Maharaja sensed his credentials, He sacked him. Since he did not accede to Pakistan, Pak politicians, army officers and British commanders, all, worked together to launch a tribal invasion on Kashmir on 22 October 1947.
An insight into British plan of pull out from India will unravel the fact that British were keen to keep Kashmir under their control. Field Marshal Lord Wavel (Viceroy and Governor General of India) prepared a partition plan of India in February 1946. As per Wavel plan, a weaker Pakistan was to be more pliable as against monolithic India. In July 1946, he recommended that since sea routes through Suez Canal had become vulnerable to Mediterranean Sea powers, sea lanes to the East through Cape of Good Hope will be the only alternative. Russian influence in Indian sub-continent could effectively endanger flow of oil from Gulf. The crux of his partition plan was that Russia must be denied access to air and naval bases in Indian sub-continent. Hence post partition J&K was very much an area of their interest. There is undeniable linkage between tribal invasion and sinister British presence in and around Indian sub-continent. Moreover Mountbatten had persuaded Nehru to agree that he heads the ‘Defence Committee’ of Indian Cabinet, otherwise prerogative of the prime minister. 1st Indo-Pak war in J&K, UN intervention and ceasefire have to be analysed and assessed in the light of this background as well.
Coming to the question of consequences had Maharaja acceded to India before 15 August, there would have been mass migration of Muslims from the state to Pakistan accompanied by rioting and bloodshed. A civil war like situation would have developed. Tribal heads of Gilgit-Baltistan would have declared independence and so would have Ladakh. Had he acceded to Pakistan, Hindus and Sikhs would have migrated to India and faced communal riots and bloodshed. In both cases, geographical alignment of J&K would have been different. Till 15 August 1947, foreign affairs and management of external security was in British hands. Maharaja could have been taken hostage and made to sign whatever British wanted at the gun point. Indian army would not come to Maharaja’s rescue. International borders would have been closer to Delhi in all the cases and we all would not have been living together as proud and prosperous Indians in a special status Indian state.
We rest all the blame on Maharaja’s intent of independence. After independence, imperatives of sound policy making for a country like India warranted leaders of a very broad vision. Ironically the political leadership proved novices despite a very high national stature. Pt Nehru failed to handle Kashmir issue sanguinely. Since geographical contiguity and communal composition weighed heavily in favour of accession to Pakistan,  Maharaja’s decision to delay accession either to remain independent or to accede to Indian Dominion later were the only options left, perhaps both prudent under those circumstances. If the reason for delay was to accede to India under favorable terms and conditions later, the fact which cannot be refuted, ruler should be accredited for that. All we know and hear is that Prime Minister Kak was in favour of independence and later accession to Pakistan. Should we still hold the ruler responsible for all the ills or come out of self assuring fantasies?
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com

Follow our WhatsApp channel