Accession of J & K to India is Complete by Dr. Mahesh Kaul

The partition of the Indian subcontinent should be seen in the perspective of the Anglo-Muslim alliance that was forged by the British to retain their strategic foothold in the Indian subcontinent to have an access to the Russian activities and the appreciable influence on the Central Asian region, mainly in terms of oil reserves. As the oil reserves were in the domain of the Central Asian and Middle Eastern Islamic countries and regions, so the British encouraged the separatist Muslim sentiment in India to impress the Muslim World and at the same time kept the nationalist movement for the Indian independence under check, which the British viewed as the ‘Hindu Nationalist’ upsurge.
Kashmir problem is the outcome of the ‘Great Game’ which the British played to keep the separatist Muslim elements alive to keep its stakes high, even though the World War II had changed the dynamics of the strategic world order. This move was further meant to make the northern Indian borders weak and pregnable forever and result is the present Kashmir crisis. It was a clear move to sow the seeds of the balkanization of the Indian Union.

The process of maintaining the checks and applying brakes on the Indian nationalists were already devised by the British well before 1947 and M.A. Jinnah was a British prop to materialize the separatist Muslim claims for the partition of India.

These ploys and what was going on in the British mind has been revealed by Krishna Menon, who was close to the British circles, in the following words to Lord Mountbatten well before the partition on 14June 1947, “Is this frontier of (the northwest of Indian spur comprising Afghanistan and Iran) still the hinterland of the Imperial strategy? Does British still think in terms of being able to use this territory and all that follows from it? 

There is considerable amount of talking in this way; and if Kashmir, for one reason or another, chooses to be (with) in Pakistan that would be a further development in the direction. I do not know of (the) British policy in this matter. I do not know it whether you know it either. But if this be the intent, this is tragic……….As it becomes more evident, the attitude of India would be resentful and Britain’s’ hold on Pakistan would not improve it.”(pp.15-16,The Untold Story of India’s Partition).

Menon was pointing towards the British strategy of using West Pakistan as a base to stop the Soviet expansion towards the Indian Ocean, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf and secondly he implied that was the British policy so ‘subterranean’ that even the Viceroy was ignorant about it? These intrigues shaped the Kashmir problem and result is the present state of chaos and desperation.

Accession of the J&K State to the Indian Union needs to be understood by keeping in mind, the traits of the British and the separatist Muslim mindset of the Muslim League nurtured by the imperial policy makers to divide India to suit their strategic hold on the Sub continent.

There is a false premise on which the J&K’s Accession to India is always understood by certain vested interests “That the Radcliffe Boundary Commission award, giving away Gurdaspur district to the Indian East Punjab was announced on August17, 1947, two days after the new Dominions of India and Pakistan had already come into being.” It is totally absurd.

The demarcation of the areas that would go to Pakistan was already devised by the British well before 1947, thepartition year. Its blueprint was already prepared by Viceroy Lord Archbald Wavell in 1946 to forge an alliance with the Jinnah’s Muslim League, the foundation of this unholy alliance was laid in 1940-41 by his predecessor Linthligow to project M.A. Jinnah as the sole spokesman of ‘Muslim India’.

The same blueprint was kept under cover till the opportune time came in 1947 for the British withdrawal. It was deliberately kept in abeyance so that the finger of suspicion for the vivisection of India was not raised on the British Empire.

So the point raised by the fifth columnists and other left liberal intellectuals that “Maharaja Hari Singh could not accede to the newly created Indian Dominion and the Indian Prime Minister, Pt Jawaharlal Nehru could not accept such a request on or before August 15, 1947 because under the provision of July 1947 Indian Independence Act passed by the British Parliament, Pathankot tehsil at that time, the only geographical link with J&K, was located in Gurdaspur district of west Punjab which had been notified under the aforesaid Act as part of Pakistan” is the falsification of the reality.

Another observation by these individuals that “The Maharaja Sahib had therefore no other option than to think of Standstill Agreement with both new Dominions of India and Pakistan and making Jammu and Kashmir an Eastern Switzerland of Asia” is another misinterpretation of constitutional realities and the facts. As India under the British was composed of the British India and the Princely states which accepted the British Paramountcy, the rulers of these states were thus bound to accede to one of the Dominions and there was no provision for the Independent existence.

The celebrated political scientist Prof M.K. Teng in the preface to his book titled ‘Kashmir – the Myth of Autonomy’ has cleared this misconception regarding the accession of the J&K and other princely states to the Indian Union. He writes “The partition of India did not envisage the accession of the Princely states to the Dominion of India and Pakistan on the basis, the British India was divided. The partition of India left the states out its scope and the transfer of power accepted the lapse of the Paramountcy: the imperial authority the British exercised over the States .The accession of the states to India was the culmination of a historical process which symbolized the unity of the people in the British India and the Indian States.” (pp. VII, Kashmir-Myth of Autonomy)

It is a populist view in order to cover the truth regarding the accession that Maharaja Hari Singh was trapped and was hence indecisive to accede to India. To clear this misconception further Prof M.K. Teng writes, “In 1947, when Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India, the ruler of the State, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the same standard form of the Instrument of Accession, which the other major Indian states signed.

The accession of the State to India was not subject to any exceptions or pre-conditions to provide for any separate and special constitutional arrangements for the state. Neither Nehru, nor Patel gave any assurances to Hari Singh or the National Conference leaders that J&K would be accorded a separate and independent political organization on the basis of the Muslim Majority character of its population.”(pp. VII, Kashmir-Myth of Autonomy)

Thus the above analysis makes it crystal clear that the accession of the Jammu and Kashmir State to the Indian Union is complete in the constitutional manner.