Kashmir: Deep rooted Conspiracy to balkanise Bharat–2
The reaction of Pakistan to Kashmir’s accession to Bharat wasvery violent. — Vinod Johri
In the previous article, the chronology of events of partition of Bharat with reference to Kashmir and UN role there just before the independence was discussed briefly. The thesis of Shri R.L. Gupta on Indo-British relations 1947-1950 (Independence Day to Republic Day) submitted in 1969 was referred in the article. The more revealing facts of intervention of the United States and Britain in Kashmir affairs with a view to holding influence in South East Asia have been narrated in “The History of British Diplomacy in Pakistan” by Ian Talbot, Professor of Modern South Asian History at University of Southampton, UK (ISBN 978-1-032-11590-0), “Freedom & Partition – Momentous Events of 14-17 August 1947” – Tan Tai Yong, Gyanesh Kudesia – (ISBN – 978-93-5687-068-0) and daily reporting in the newspapers of that time (Till now, I have gone through all the newspapers of Hindustan (Hindi) from 1945-1958) besides several other books on Kashmir. The second part of previous article - “Kashmir: Deep rooted Conspiracy to balkanise Bharat” covers some more facts how Kashmir was attempted as battle ground on massacre and bloodshed of Kashmiris, based on R.L. Gupta’s thesis. The then newspapers have elaborately published news, articles, statements and analyses more honestly while authors picked and chose according to their narratives ignoring the glorious past of Kashmir and ground realities of Kashmir.
By and large, the British attitude to the Kashmir question was neither impartial nor objective. Though the British Government, in the initial stages claimed to have adopted a neutral attitude, in the Security Council, its representative completely identified it with the Pakistani cause. It caused both surprise and disappointment in Bharat and affected Indo-British relations adversely. Alan Campbell Johnson wrote in his diary,
“Various suspicions are seeping into the minds of the Indian Government and the politically conscious public which taken together could develop into a major frontal attack on Indo British good-will. In the first place, there is bewilderment at the delay of the United Nations in accepting India’s basic complaint that an act of aggression has taken place…. Hence grows the suspicion that the United Nations is being made the forum for the promotion of international power politics. As evidence of this, the published attitude of the American and British delegates, Warren Austin and Noel Baker, are cited. Both are wildly accused of being unashamedly pro-Pakistan for a variety of unedifying reasons.”
The Bhartiya reaction to the attitude adopted by the British Government on the problem of Kashmir was lucidly summed up by the UN correspondent of “The Hindu” (12.02.1948) in the following words:
“It is abundantly clear that British policy regarding India and Pakistan in the international field is going to be precisely what it was as regards the Congress and the Muslim League in the domestic sphere - ostensible public profession of neutrality coupled with secret, but nonetheless actual and effective, support for Pakistan and all anti-Indian and anti-democratic forces.... Mr. Noel Baker evidently came here from London with a more or less clear-cut programme of “settlement” regarding the Kashmir dispute. From the very first day, he has been trying to push it through on the pretence of agreeing with India as to the urgency of the situation. The majority of the Council members have gone along with him. I am reliably informed that their bias has even more plainly been revealed at “private meetings” between India and Pakistan which Mr. Noel Baker has assiduously promoted and where doubtless he hoped some sort of a “settlement”, could be patched up….”
The joint proposal of Prime Minister Attlee and President Truman for arbitration was neither welcomed nor appreciated in Bharat. Prime Minister Nehru was “surprised at the intervention of President Truman and Mr. Attlee in the Kashmir issue” and told them that it was no use side-tracking the basic issue. He said:
“If what we say is in accordance with facts, the whole world ought to appreciate that our stand is justified. If we are wrong, we should be plainly told so. But it is not right to side-track the basic cause of the conflict. Such a situation obviously makes us restless and uneasy.”
The Hindu (06.09.1949), in an editorial entitled “Intervention” commented:
“On the whole Indian public reaction to the joint appeal of the American President and the British Prime Minister has been one of doubt, if not of exception to this somewhat unusual step of suggesting the acceptance of a particular proposal to two independent states, who were parties to a dispute involving complicated issues concerned not only with those two states but also the political future of the people of the third state. One would naturally expect; those who tender advice to post themselves fully with the facts of the situation and the contention of the Parties. But it is unlikely that Messrs. Truman and Attlee have had either the time or the material to go fully into the Kashmir developments up-to-date….”
Thus, the attitude of the British Government on the Kashmir question was considered in Bharat to be neither impartial nor objective. It seems that the British Government was actuated by considerations of power politics in adopting this attitude and was also unnecessarily trying to interfere in Bhartiya affairs. This was widely regretted in Bharat and adversely affected Bharat-British relations. The attitude of the Conservative Party (in accordance with its traditionally pro-Muslim outlook) was in line with her pro-Pakistani bias and was, therefore, ignored by and large in the country. But the attitude of the British Press was in marked contrast to its attitude on the Hyderabad question. The suggestion of the British Press for partition of Kashmir was strongly resented throughout the country. On the whole, the British attitude to the Kashmir question seemed to be determined by considerations of strategy and politics and not either impartiality or friendly relations with independent Bharat. All this is unfortunate, for two reasons. For one thing, British Government has a certain responsibility for the origin of both the Kashmir and Hyderabad problems, in that they would not have arisen if it had unequivocally advised the princely states to join promptly either dominion - in this case, Bharat, for obvious reasons of geographical contiguity, among others. All the more, therefore, the Bharatiya government and people were very much annoyed with the British stand in respect of these two questions.
Attitude of the Conservative Party
The Kashmir question was not much of a political issue within Great Britain. The Conservatives, like the British Labour Government, considered the problem of Kashmir a serious one and urged solution by holding a plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations. However, they were more vocal in their criticism of India and support to Pakistan. Their leader, Winston Churchill, participating in the debate on Hyderabad and Kashmir in the House of Commons said -
“…. Nor can I understand what principle underlies the attitude of the Indian Government towards the two States. In Kashmir, four-fifths of the people are Muslim and the ruler is a Hindu. His accession to the Dominion of India is accepted without any reference to the vast majority of his people. In regard to Hyderabad, the case, as a communal problem, is the other way round. The ruler is a Muslim and the bulk of the people are non-Muslims. The Indian Government - the Nehru Government take the line that in one case it is the will of the people and in the other case it is the decision of the ruler. In either case, however, we work it, they get them both. I must say that we ought to notice this very curious way of deciding these grave issues.”
Conservative spokesmen also considered Kashmir vital to the defence of Pakistan and suggested ‘friendly arbitration’ by the Commonwealth and the British Government if the United Nations failed to enforce a decision.
Attitude of the British Press
British Press was very critical of Pakistan in the Kashmir dispute. It blamed the Pakistan Government “for bungling the diplomatic situation’’ and favouring and fostering the rebel tribesmen.
The Times, (30 Oct 1947) in a leading article said:-
“The Pakistan Government, making a first false step, gave economic support to this movement by withholding supplies from Kashmir. The reported intention of Pakistan to reply by sending forces of its own into Kashmir is a different matter; it would, in fact, be a hostile act against the Dominion of India, with which Kashmir is now lawfully associated.”
The Manchester Guardian (31 October 1947) also wrote in an editorial-
“…. To drive the Kashmir Government into federating with Pakistan, Mr. Jinnah, seems to have used the weapon of economic blockade. The Afridi raiders may not be Pakistani troops, but seem to bear to Pakistan the same relation as the German “tourists” did to the German Government in the Spanish civil war….”
The Daily Telegraph (6 January 1948) admitted that -
“…. there can be equally little doubt that Pakistan has favoured and fostered the rebel tribesmen, if not encouraged them more actively. Whether Mr. Jinnah or his Prime Minister, Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan, could now call off the rebels without military intervention, is more dubious….”
The New Statesman and Nation deplored the intervention of Pakistan in the Kashmir dispute and called her the guilty party. It said -
“…..To us the manner of Pakistan’s intervention in the whole affair seems to make her the guilty party. Disavowing the raiders, she was all the time supporting them and inserting her own army. Placing no reliance on the possibility of a democratic solution, she deliberately resorted to force….”
But while strongly criticising Pakistan, the British Press considered the partition of Kashmir as the best solution to the problem.
On 31 October 1947, The Manchester Guardian wrote -
“…. There will have to be a compromise. The easiest interim plan might be for Kashmir proper to join Pakistan and for the territory of Jammu, which it had formerly included, to federate with India.”
The Economist also said -
“…. After all that has happened in Kashmir, the best solution is probably to be found in a partition of the state with a directed population exchange….”
The Times also advocated:
“…. The sensible course for both sides India and Pakistan, might be to accept some partition of the country as inevitable and to give the Commission (United Nations) a free hand to arrange the preliminaries early….”
There is lot to read about the conspiracy of plebiscite and Radcliffe line of partition in Kashmir context. The Commissions set up by United Nations under the US and British diplomats only complicated the mess and multiplied hostilities. Apparently, UN was façade but US and Britain were the deep state forces destabilising the region with Pakistan as an easy prey.
Share This
