The people of Kashmir voiced against the fateful move.
They held
widespread agitations but their voices were neglected. Slogans were raised
against the decision. Demonstrations started in 1931 when 22 protestors
were shot dead. Kashmiris’ struggle for freedom started long before the
partitioning of sub-continent India (Al-Jazeera English, 27 June 2018, 1:30). In
1932, Sheikh Abdullah formed a political party National Conference. In order
to oust the Dogra rule, Sheikh Abdullah initiated a “Quit Kashmir” movement
(Dasgupta, 2002: 35) that rivaled the Sikhs and Hindus towards the Muslims.
In 1946, Abdullah was imprisoned for nine years. In September 1947, the
Maharaja ordered the release of Abdullah.
Issue of Kashmir Accession: Post-Partition
The Jammu and Kashmir region spread over an area of 84,471 sq. miles was
the largest princely state in the Indian sub-continent (Anand, 1964). As per
the 1941 census, in terms of religious composition, Kashmir accounted for
77.11 percent of Muslims and 22.89 percent of Hindus and other
communities such as Buddhists and Sikhs formed two per cent of the total
population (Das, 1950). Except Pakistan and India, the third state that claims
the Vale of Kashmir in its entirety is China. Currently, the most uninhabited
area, Aksai Chin, is in control of China. Dating back to the day of transfer of
power, the issue remained unresolved to this day (Goodhart et al., 1995).
The dominions of Pakistan and India emerged on the map of the world when
Pakistan and India were carved out of the Indian subcontinent in 1947 after
the British rule ended. The partition brought with it abrupt, sudden and large-
scale displacements, violence and breakdown of established civic life in large
parts of the region. People in order to search for the new homes and save
themselves, motivated the political violence on the self-settled refugees.
Almost one million people were killed following the sectarian violence (Al-
Jazeera English, 27 June 2018, 1:55). The emerging states did not have
sufficient administrative or medical facilities to cope with the unprecedented
level of movement of people. The partition brought with it the horrific acts of
killing, violence and sexual assaults along with the mental and physical
health issues (Sarin etal., 2015).
The widespread violence and violations of human rights, the deaths of half a
million people and a large scale physical and sexual abuse, arson, looting
and destruction of property along with the 15 million people abandoned their
homes and moved to new borders. There was a lack of adequate institutions
and any law to either control the violence or physical and sexual assault that
was not restricted to a particular class or community.
The violent events of partition gave rise to the atmosphere of suspicion and
hostility between India and Pakistan that has plagued the relationship
between the two for more than seven decades. From then onwards, India-
Pakistan relations have been marked by occasional tensions. The two
neighbours have fought wars in 1948, 1965, 1971 and 1999. Moreover, the
endless tension prompted them to go for a nuclear option. Since then,
Kashmir remains to be a stumbling block between the two. Moreover, India is
hesitant over the internationalization of the issue and the bilateral talks have
resulted in stalemate of the rhetoric.
Ahmed (2000) stated that currently the world is transitioning towards
regionalism and geo-economics by resolving their issues of discord. Still,
there are some countries that are living in Cold War paradigms and are
reluctant to resolve their political and geographical disputes. India and
Pakistan are the countries that are unable to resolve their issues and their
major areas of conflict.
As per the Britishers, the principle of communal majority was adopted at the
time of partitioning. The contiguous Muslim majority areas were aligned to
Pakistan while the Hindu majority areas were acceded to India. Earlier, the
Princely states enjoyed the semi-autonomous status during Britishers rule,
the Partition Plan was not applied to these states. These states were ‘under
no obligation to either join India or Pakistan’. Lord Mountbatten, the then
Viceroy put pressure on these Princely states to either accede to India or
Pakistan.
