Pakistan Al-Manshoor Party

The Question of Kashmir (Manzoor Ahmed Manzoor: Lahore: April 17, 2002)

“one is within safe limits to say that the antagonism of Pakistan against India is not due to

Kashmir ‘problem’. Rather, the Kashmir problem has been the direct result of the mindset I have

discussed so thoroughly …. I have gone into its deep recesses and observed the phenomenon

carefully for quite a long time. I believe, had it not been Kashmir, some other problem with India

would have been created by this mindset. Even today, they are thinking and working to break

India into pieces!”

People of Pakistan are victims of this Kashmir Problem, while Kashmiris have been used as a tool

to build careers and fortunes. It cannot be allowed to go like this. I will go into the heart of it.

Inshaallah, we will succeed to uphold the truth and pass on the benefits of this struggle to the

people of the region and the world at large. For the falsehood, time has finished. Those who cannot

understand truth and bring about an honest change in them, even now, have to leave the stage.

The Ideology and its Practice in Pakistan

In the English daily The Nation of Lahore, dated 13 March 2000, a news item read like this:

Nation suffering because Objectives Resolution not implemented

Lahore: - Editor-in-Chief The Nation, Majid Nizami has said that the nation is suffering because

the Objectives Resolution has not been implemented in true letter and spirit.... Majid Nizami said

that Objectives Resolution was part of the Constitution and there should be no ambiguity in this

regard in the mind of any individual. He said that Quaid-i-Azam (Jinnah) had declared that the

constitution of Pakistan was drafted 1400 years back; therefore, it was very much clear that Islam

would be the only guideline of legislation in the country....

Earlier the same daily carried news like this:

Nizami asks Army to implement Quaid's order Editor-in-Chief

The Nation and Editor of Urdu daily Nawa-i-Waqt Majid Nizami has said that Jehadi forces had

torn into pieces the Soviet Empire and by this power of faith in Allah the mighty India could also

be broken into many parts.

Speaking at a seminar held in connection with the Solidarity Day organized by Tehrik-e-Pakistan

(Pakistan Movement) Workers Trust and Nazaria-e-Pakistan (Ideology of Pakistan) Foundation,

Majid Nizami said that if India attacked Pakistan, it would be responded appropriately.

Editor-in-chief The Nation said "India occupied Kashmir by force since it had bad intentions

against us and Kashmiris have sacrificed which has no parallel in recent history."

Nizami was clear in saying that resolution of Kashmir lies in solution like Afghanistan under which

Mujahideen forced the Russians to retreat by an armed struggle. He was optimistic that very soon

the Held Valley would get freedom from the evil paws of India.

Tracing history Majid Nizami said that the Quaid-e-Azam had ordered the English Commander-

in-Chief of Pakistan Army to order his forces into Kashmir but he did not comply with the Quaid's

orders and "now our armed forces owe the execution of this command till today."

*

For us, the people of Pakistan, it is quite normal to read similar utterances, which are very anti-

India, anti-West, and anti-America. In is normal for them to talk about conspiracies of Hindus and

Jews against Islam and Pakistan. These ideologues want to convey that they are very much

concerned about Islam, Pakistan and the Muslim world. They seem to be very confident in their

statements. They give the impression that they know the root cause of every problem in Pakistan,

a so rt of monopoly on “truth”. This is what every ideologue, wherever he may be, will do. Those

who are comparatively reasonable unlike the ideologues or do not agree with such rhetoric have

never been an alternative, standing on their own feet. With passing of every day, being the need of

the state, there was more religion in the politics of the country. So in the public domain, rhetoric

of the ideologues prevailed in Pakistan.

In any case, it is time, in Pakistan; to turn to simple truths of life, normally understood by

everybody, as all grand theories and ideologies have brought us to such a state of affairs. It is my

endeavour to bring forth facts obscured by the ideology. What has been discovered has larger

implications beyond the borders of Pakistan. So, in a way it is a notice to any individual,

organization, or a government who are interested in peace in the region or the world at large. What

has developed in Pakistan has not been noticed by the world or it had an in-built trait to hide itself

and not letting anyone take notice of the phenomenon. Although here I will focus on Kashmir, but

while doing so I will try that you get the general idea of the larger dimension of the problem in the

sub-continent.

What the ideologues or others who matter in Pakistan say are basically the same. Practically,

whosoever is in public life has nothing to offer except to talk and repeat same things over and over

again. Whatever this may be, this culture started taking shape with the growth of the Muslim

League party. The lead community of this process was Hindustani now identified as Mohajirs in

Pakistan. Or we can say that the Muslim League, led by Urduvi Hindustani Mohajirs, put Pakistan

on such a wrong track that failure had to be the destined end of our

country.

Many a time I have wondered as to why nobody from the elites emerged to discover the truth.

After all the job of abandoning wrong ideas should not have been as difficult for them as about a

decade ago by the communists in the ex-communist countries. By and large, the communist leaders

were able to transform themselves and so peaceful transition became possible. Why such a

transformation could not happen in Pakistan?

Then there is a question as to why the people of Pakistan, at least Punjabis and Pathans could not

understand the game and let their land become infested with non-sensible theories and ideologies?

The answer is, as I have understood, that these communities were far behind in slumber. The

Punjabis, the largest section of the present-day Pakistan, had fame for backwardness. The culture

engendered by Hindustani Urduvi Mohajirs made every new entrant, like above referred editor

Nizami's family or Nawaz Sharif family, for instance, ardent fortune-seekers without any regard

to what was right or wrong. And then they had no limits as if the game is endless. Oblivious of the

realities of life, they behaved as if being in power is a child’s play.

But now the falsehood of the falsifiers has become so open and obvious that only lunatics may not

see it. It is no more a “usual business” in Pakistan. They have hardly any innovations up their

sleeves and their falsehood has started becoming so apparent that the ideology has begun getting

dismantled in the minds of ordinary people. The magicians have lost their magic. Such a time is

the time of liberation of a people. The present moment is such a moment in Pakistan. It is our

Moment of Truth.

Let us, once for all, face the truth in its entirety.

The Facts of History

The Lahore (Pakistan) Resolution, March 23, 1940

As all of us know, on March 23, 1940, All-India Muslim League in its 22nd annual session at

Lahore adopted a resolution, commonly known as the Pakistan Resolution. It said:

“Resolved that it is the considered view of this session of the All-India Muslim League that no

constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to the Muslims unless it is

designed on the following basic principles., viz., that geographically contiguous units are

demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial readjustments as

may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the

North-western and eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute ‘Independent States’

in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign”.

Here, in passing, please note the words “geographically contiguous units... in which the Muslims

are numerically in a majority...” because the Muslim League was to violate this principle in its

overall approach and by accepting accession of Junagadh, practically in a most flagrant way and

consequently derail Pakistan from day one.

The British India and the States

The Indian states, numbering 562, comprised roughly a third of India's territory and a quarter of

the population. They were outside the administrative set-up of British India and were ruled by

Indian princes who had accepted the United Kingdom as the paramount power. Most of them

were small and exercised limited powers and jurisdiction, but there were 140 fully empowered

states. The largest, such as Hydarabad, Mysore, and Kashmir, were, in extent of territory and

population, comparable with British Indian provinces.

Their relations with the British government were established by treaties and agreements, which

had been negotiated or imposed during the gradual expansion of British rule in India, and varied

from state to state. But in all cases the paramount power was responsible for foreign relations and

external and internal security, and could exercise disciplinary authority over the princes in the

event of misrule. In relation to the Indian states, the Viceroy functioned as Crown representative

and had directly under him a political department for administering their affairs. In the bigger

states, officers of the political department were appointed as residents; and the smaller states were

grouped into zones for purposes of control by political agents. Railways,

posts and telegraphs, and currency had integrated the states in many ways with British India and

made them a part of the economic system controlled by the government of India. But in the

management of their affairs, the rulers of Indian states were free within the limits set by treaties

and by the doctrine of the paramountcy.

The Lahore Resolution, confined to British India

In a letter to Jinnah dated September 15, 1944, Gandhi wrote "For the moment I ... with your

assistance am applying my mind very seriously to the famous Lahore resolution of the Muslim

League." and then asked: "How are the Muslims under the Princes to be disposed of as a result

of this scheme?"

To this Jinnah replied in his letter dated September 17, 1944 and he wrote: "Muslims under the

Princes. The Lahore Resolution is only confined to British India. This question does not arise

out of the clarification of the Resolution."

Why not independent Bangladesh in 1947?

Although question of Bangladesh is apparently not connected with the question of Kashmir, but

when we know that both tragedies were created by the same mindset, it is relevant to discuss it

here.

The Lahore Resolution said that the contiguous Muslim majority areas in Bengal and contiguous

Muslim majority areas of present day Pakistan areas should become independent countries. In

this way there would have been no "East Pakistan" of Muslim League. In the very beginning,

present Bangladesh would have been an independent country in 1947. But when power became

visible, the Muslim League itself subverted this natural and logical process. Now, was it more

tempting for them to become leaders of one bigger country? The resolution passed at the All

India Muslim League Legislator's convention held at Delhi, on 9th April 1947 said:

"That the zones comprising Bengal and Assam in the North East and the Punjab, North-West

Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan in the North-West of India; namely Pakistan zones,

where the Muslims are in a dominant majority, be constituted into a sovereign independent state

and that an unequivocal undertaking be given to implement the establishment of Pakistan without

delay".

So the Muslim League violated its own resolution when they decided to have one Muslim country

in India instead of two, as originally envisaged. Therefore Pakistan came into being having two

patrs - East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and West Pakistan (now Pakistan).

The wrongness and negative effects of this un-sustainable decision, of having one Muslim

country instead of two, are simply non-existent in the consciousness of our people. Why?

Because there was nobody to bring home truth to the people. It was the duty of those who had a

big share of spoken and written word in Pakistan. Instead of analyzing and understanding issues

honestly, they, under the cover of ideology, consistently blamed India and the West (more

recently America) for every failure of the elite classes of Pakistan! In this way they failed people

of Pakistan, and so, failed Pakistan itself.

Anyhow, the historical process had to intervene and correct, naturally in due course of time, what

wrong the Muslim League had done. As we know, there was violent separation of East Pakistan

into Bangladesh in 1971. In other words, liberation for the people of former East Pakistan became

possible only when this abnormality created by the Muslim League in 1947 was made to vanish.

How to explain so big lapse in the judgement on the part of Muslim League? I think

circumstances were beyond them and they were reacting. They were not aware. There were no

thinkers. They opened fronts, which were not to be opened. They left the safe and conservative

path and became lost. We have lessons to learn!

The Hidden Agenda of the Muslim League

It is strange to say that the conflict between Pakistan and India has not been generally

understood; because it is so obvious and everybody knows there is the Kashmir Problem

between them. I do not think so. Above I have referred to British India and the States. As the

independence was approaching, the British had this to say about the future of the States:

The British

The June 3 partition plan for the transfer of power stated that the policy toward Indian states

contained in the Cabinet Mission memorandum of May 12, 1946, remained unchanged. The

operative part of this memorandum was contained in its concluding lines, which read: "All the

rights surrendered by the States to the Paramount Power will return to the States. Political

arrangements between the States on the one side and the British Crown and British India on

the other will thus be brought to an end. The void will have to be filled either by the States

entering into a federal relationship with the successor Government or Governments in British

India, or failing this, entering into particular political, arrangements with it or them."

So, there was absolutely no question of independence of any State in India. They will have to

enter into a federal relationship or particular political arrangements with the successor

Government (in case India is not divided) or Governments (in case India is divided into India

and Pakistan).

And what was the position of the Congress, the strongest party of the future?

The Congress

On June 14, 1947 the All-India Congress Committee passed a resolution affirming the lapse of

paramountcy did not lead to the independence of the states because they could not live in

isolation from rest of India; and stating that the sovereign people would have the right to

determine their own future. Gandhi said that declarations of independence by Indian princes

"were tantamount to a declaration of war against the free millions of India."

In February 1938 the Congress had passed a resolution that considered the states an integral part

of India and demanded the same political, social, and economic freedom in the states as in the

rest of India. "Today," Jawaharlal Nehru had said, "a remarkable awakening is taking place all

over India including the Indian States. We on our part must try to nurse it, cherish it and we

must try to organize ourselves." Thus an intimate connection was established between the

Congress and the All- India States' People's Conference, which also came under Gandhi's

leadership.

In December 1938, Gandhi had warned the States that the Congress policy of non-interference

might be abandoned, and advised rulers to cultivate friendly relations "with an organization

which bids fair in the future, not very distant, to replace the Paramount Power." In 1939 Nehru

had been elected president of the All-India States' People's Conference, which became a satellite

organization of the Congress. Leading members of the Congress had taken part in the agitation

in the States. Gandhi himself had led a civil disobedience movement

in Rajkot...the state of his birth.

What about Jinnah? It is simply disgusting to know and then trying hard, but failing eventually,

to find some reasonable explanation of his position.

Jinnah and the Muslim League

Jinnah, on the other hand, declared in a statement issued on June 18, 1947 that, constitutionally

and legally the states would be independent sovereign states on the termination of paramountcy

and would be free to adopt any course they liked.

Muslim League's attitude to the question of Kashmir's accession was stated by Jinnah in a talk

with a delegation of the Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference workers in July, 1947. In the

course of his talk he remarked: "I have already made it clear more than once that the Indian

States are free to join either the Pakistan Constituent Assembly or the Hindustan Constituent

Assembly or remain independent.”

The Unfortunate People of Pakistan

Jinnah’s position was morally wrong. Firstly, because it violated Lahore Resolution. According

to his position a Hindu majority state could go to Pakistan and a Muslim majority state could go

to India. Secondly, when out of 562 states, all except 13 were to join India by August 15, 1947,

could there be any moral ground for Jinnah to speak for all the 562 states in such general terms,

and that too barely a month before August 14 or 15. It was as if he was inviting anarchy in India.

Imagine 562 + 2 = 564 independent States or countries in the sub-continent! It was immoral.

Thirdly there was no binding in his position that the people of any state were the final arbiters

of their own destiny. Demand for Pakistan, being people-based, it shows a clear inconsistency

in Jinnah’s position.

Jinnah’s position lacked statesmanship and vision because it was not in the interest of the people

of Pakistan, not to have peaceful relations with India. But it showed that the Muslim League had

sown the seeds of discord between the future States of India and Pakistan even before their

independence. Were others so naïve as not to see that?

So, perforce we are compelled to consider that, perhaps, what was apparent was not all and in

their superior wisdom, there was something underneath the open politics, which had to be kept

secret. It was unfortunate and people of Pakistan had to pay the price as politics sans principles

opened the doors for fancies and imaginations of all sorts of adventurers and ideologues. It never

stopped.

Let us see how this state of mind practically operated during 1947-48 in three different cases -

Junagadh, Hydarabad and Kashmir.

Hydarabad

The State of Hydarabad was founded by Mir Qamruddin Chin Qilich Khan. He was the son of

Aurangzeb's general, Ghazi-ud-din Khan Feroz Jang, who traced his ancestry to Abu Bakr, the

first Khalifa. He received the title of Nizam-ul-Mulk from the Emperor in Delhi. By 1724, Mir

Qamaruddin had made himself virtually independent of Delhi. In 1947, the ruler, Nizam Mir

Usman Ali Khan Bahadur, was the seventh in the line. He succeeded to the gaddi on 29 August

1911.

Geographically, Hydarabad occupied a pivotal position in the heart of the country. The State was

surrounded by the Central Provinces in the north, Bombay in the west, and Madras on the east

and south. In population, revenue and importance it was the Premier State in the country. The

population was nearly sixteen million and the annual revenue Rs.26 crores. Its area was over

82,000 square miles. Hydarabad had its own coinage, paper currency and stamps. The majority

of its people were Hindus, and obviously the ruler was a Muslim.

As we understand today, it is not known why the Muslim League used the words “autonomous

and sovereign” in the Lahore Resolution, because within an independent country autonomous

units okay, but sovereign units made no sense. And, further, what was their wisdom in keeping

the resolution “only confined to British India”? And still further what was their wisdom in

Jinnah’s statement that “the Indian states are free to join either the Pakistan Constituent

Assembly or the Hindustan Constituent Assembly or remain independent”?

Perhaps, the ambiguity was deliberate and an effort to try to make the State of Hydarabad

independent. But it was beyond the scope of Lahore Resolution, as Hydarabad was a Hindu

majority area well within independent India of the future. If so, it was wrong and unprincipled

on the part of Muslim League to have such an attitude. Apart from what is visible in the

resolution, one can discern that there was a hidden agenda or a general opinion in the higher

circles of the Muslim League to grab whatever and wherever possible as the British were leaving

the sub-continent.

It was a direct recipe for disaster for the prospective people of Pakistan - Punjabis, Pathans and

others. Regarding geographically contiguous units of North-western and eastern India where

Muslims were in majority; the Pakistan Resolution was very nearly realized with the June 3, 1947

plan presented by the British and accepted by the Muslim League and the Congress party.

According to the British scheme of things, there was no place for independence to any state in

India. The States had to join either India or Pakistan. Hydarabad State was inside India and its

majority population was Hindu. Militarily, Hydarabad could not have existed as an independent

state without the consent of Indian government. This was apparent to any normal man at that time.

According to the principles of partition Hydarabad had to go to India. And then Mountbatten

offered a referendum to the Nizam of Hydarabad.

Was not Nizam of Hydarabad making mischief? In not accepting referendum, had he not the

blessings of the Muslim League? Why Muslim League was doing this? Why Muslim League was

sowing discord when they got peacefully, constitutionally and lawfully what they had demanded

as per Pakistan Resolution? Why Muslim League was taking position, which was impossible to

defend?

So the Muslim League wanted an independent Hydarabad within India, without the consent of

India and the British, a state with Hindu population but Muslim Nizam (or ruler)! With this

thinking, the Muslim League never demanded Kashmir right upto August 14, 1947. And the

obvious fact was that it was impossible for Hydarabad to remain independent or join Pakistan. Can

any custodian of the ideology explain why they were making such mad decisions? Words cannot

express the enormity of the crime Muslim League committed against our people. They put Pakistan

in a confrontationist mode from day one and have wasted our precious 50 plus years. For what

ends? Their eccentricities have entangled us in such a web that to come out of this, now, we need

almost a revolution. Their single-track mind was oblivious to what was happening around them.

Why the Muslim League was oblivious to the facts of history around them? Why the Muslim

League was not concerned about the security and wellbeing of the population on whose votes they

got Pakistan? Why the Muslim League was not forward-looking?

Why the Muslim League was behaving against the spirit of June 3 plan? Why Muslim League was

making every issue unnecessarily contentious? What possible benefits could have come to the

people of Pakistan by such a behavior? Why confrontation was being sown?

Questions arise but there are no straight answers. When the British and the Congress had clear

established policies about British India and the States, why the smaller party, the Muslim League,

had a dubious stand? Here the ideologue or his disciple would be jubilant to say: Look how our

Quaid-i-Azam fought against the British and the Hindus! Anyhow, the right position would have

been to apply the resolution to the States as well. But instead the Muslim League was giving free

license to all States to do whatever they liked! It could not have been without a price tag, but in

another form.

As the Muslim League leaders had very poor opinion of Hindus, they could not visualize and

naturally did not wish to see India emerge as a united and strong nation, so they were keeping their

options open to grab territories wherever possible. And the prime property was the State of

Hydarabad. This seems to me the explanation of the unclear “autonomous and sovereign” words

in the Lahore Resolution and the erratic behavior of Jinnah and the Muslim League, later on.

Although Muslim League spoke about peace but I believe, it was never their agenda.

We leave Hydrabad here, for the moment, and look into the parallel developments on Junagadh

and Kashmir.

Junagadh

"About 1735, when Moghul Government had fallen into decay, Sherkhan Babi, a soldier of

fortune and an officer under the subah, expelled the Moghul Governor and established his rule in

Junagadh. The last Nawab of Junagadh was a descendant of Sherkhan Babi. The Nawab, Sir

Mahabatkhan Rasulkhanji, was an eccentric of rare vintage. His chief preoccupation in life was

dogs, of which he owned hundreds. He carried his love for dogs to such lengths that he once

organized a wedding of two of his pets, over which he spent a huge sum of money and in honour

of which he proclaimed a State holiday."

"The state had no contiguity with Pakistan by land and its distance by sea, from port Veraval to

Karachi, was about 300 miles. The area of the State was 3,337 square miles and the population

(according to the Census of 1941) numbered 6,70,719 of which over 80 per cent were Hindus.

There were several islands of Junagadh territory in the States of Gondal, Bhavnagar and

Nawanagar. Similarly, parts of States, which had acceded to the Indian Dominion, were

interspersed with Junagadh territory. Access to these as well as to certain areas belonging to

Baroda State was only possible through Junagadh."

Manavadar was a tiny State with an area of about 100 square miles and with a vast majority of

Hindus, was surrounded on three sides by Junagadh territory and on the north by the State of

Gondal. The ruler of Manavadar was Muslim.

The States of Junagadh, Hydarabad, and Kashmir had not acceded to India or Pakistan by August

15, 1947, but the Muslim ruler of Junagadh had offered to accede to Pakistan. The Muslim ruler

of Manavadar, also offered to accede to Pakistan. These accessions were accepted by Jinnah on

September 5, 1947. The Government of India was also informed.

The Governor-General of India telegraphed to the Governor-General of Pakistan: "Such

acceptance of accession by Pakistan cannot but be regarded by Government of India as an

encroachment on India's sovereignty and territory and inconsistent with friendly relations that

should exist between the two Dominions. This action . . . is . . . in utter violation of principles on

which partition was agreed upon and effected."

Mark the words of Mountbatten, the Governor-General of India: “This action . . . is . . . in utter

violation of principles on which partition was agreed upon and effected." There could not have

been any principled reply to this observation.

Did not Muslim League, by accepting accession of Junagadh and Manavadar, violated the

principles on which partition was accepted? By violating agreed principles, did not Muslim

League open the doors of confrontation, which could never have been in the interest of Pakistan

- being a new and unconsolidated country? Did this decision not damage Kashmir’s accession

Pakistan?

Kashmir

In 1752 Kashmir passed from the feeble control of the Moghul emperor into the powerful grasp

of Ahmad Shah Abdali of Afghanistan and for the next sixty years it was held for the Pathans by

a series of governors who were more or less independent of the king. In 1819 it was conquered

by Maharajah Ranjit Singh of the Punjab, the great Sikh ruler. Till 1846 it remained under the

Sikhs and was administered by their governors.

Gulab Singh was a great grandnephew of Ranjit Deo - a Dogra chief of Rajput descent - who ruled

Jammu in the latter half of the eighteenth century. Gulab Singh entered the service of Maharajah

Ranjit Singh, who conferred the principality of Jammu on Gulab Singh with the hereditary title

of Rajah. In 1846, at the close of the first Sikh War, Gulab Singh appeared on the scene as

mediator between the English and the Sikhs. As the Sikhs were not in a position to pay cash

portion of the indemnity of Rs. one crore, they ceded Jammu and Kashmir, apart from other

territories. Gulab Singh offered to pay the war indemnity on the condition he was made the

independent ruler of Jammu and Kashmir.

Accordingly the East India Company concluded a treaty at Amritsar of 16 March 1846. Gulab

Singh acknowledged the supremacy of the British Government. Kashmir, or to give its full name,

the State of Jammu and Kashmir, had an area of 84,471 square miles and was the biggest state in

India. The total population of the state, according to the 1941 census, was about 4,000,000, of

whom 77 per cent were Muslims. In 1947, the ruler of the state was Maharajah Hari Singh.

“The Muslim League's attitude to the question of Kashmir's accession was stated by the Quaid-i-

Azam in a talk with a delegation of the Jammu and Kashmir Muslim conference workers in July,

1947. In the course of his talk he remarked: "I have already made it clear more than once that the

Indian states are free to join either the Pakistan Constituent Assembly or the Hindustan Constituent

Assembly or remain independent. I have no doubt that they, the Maharaja and the Kashmir

Government, will give the closest attention and consideration to this matter and realize the interest

not only of the ruler but also his people."

And again: “On a number of occasions in June and July of 1947 the Quaid-i-Azam said: ‘The legal

position is that with the lapse of paramountcy on the transfer of power by the British all Indian

states would automatically regain their full sovereign and independent status. They are, therefore,

free to join either of the two Dominions or to remain independent. The Muslim League recognizes

the right of each state to choose its destiny. It has no intention of coercing any state into adopting

any particular course of action.’ It was not merely the Quaid-i-Azam's penchant for

constitutionalism that led him to make these pronouncements; they were also intended to safeguard

Hydarabad's independence. By the same token they might jeopardize Kashmir's accession to

Pakistan, but that was not considered a great risk.”

So, according to the Muslim League’s scheme of things or strategy, Hydarabad was more

important than Kashmir. Who were the people who thought like that? Could they be Bengalis or

Punjabis, Pathans or Sindhis, or Baluchis? None of them. They were the Hindustanis who were in

the forefront of the Muslim League and of course Jinnah.

Further, it seems, their calculation was that once they got themselves installed as rulers of the new

state of Pakistan, Kashmir would be an easily conquerable state, because "Kashmir," Jinnah would

say, "will fall into our lap like a ripe fruit." This supports what I tend to think that they had made

practical preparations much before August 14, 1947; otherwise the attack on Kashmir by the tribal

lashkar (contingent) would not have been possible on October 22, 1947.

The Fruits of Ideology

How all this ended up during 1947-48? Nothing worst, perhaps, could have happened!

Junagadh found for 33 days and lost

Towards the end of October, the Nawab (of Junagadh) left for Karachi with most of the

members of his family and some of his dogs. As the party was about to enter the plane, it was

found that one of the Begums (wives) had forgotten to bring her child but the Nawab refused

to wait; the plane took off, leaving the Begum behind to find her way later to the Portuguese

settlement of Diu. The Nawab took with him the entire cash balances of the State and all the

shares and securities in the treasury.

It was ultimately decided by India to send a Deputy Inspector-General of Police with a small

police force into Manavadar to take over the administration of the State. This was done on 22

October and subsequently a manager was appointed to carry on the administration.

Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto in a letter asked Mr. Buch, Regional Commissioner, Western India

and Gujarat States for help: “A meeting was therefore held this evening (November 7) and

the views of the leaders were unanimously expressed that instead of handing over the

administration to the Indian Union through the so- called Provisional Government it should

be directly given over to the Indian Union through the Regional Commissioner at Rajkot,

particularly with a view to preserving law and order which is threatened by aggressive

elements from outside.” The administration was handed over peacefully … on 9 November.

The Dewan, Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, had left for Karachi the previous day – a day before

Buch entered Junagadh and took over the administration.

On November 1, the enclaves of Babariwad and Mongrol were taken over by Indian forces.

Manavadar had already been occupied by India some days earlier. On November 7, an Azad

Fauj, or liberation army, of 20,000 men with armored cars and other modern weapons entered

Junagadh. Two days later control over the entire state was assumed by India. Pakistan, at that

time, was in no position to defend Junagadh.

Hydarabad not found and lost

Here, let us see first, what was the position of the State of Hydarabad itself vis-a-vis the Muslim

League, about the unfolding scenario of independence and departing of the British.

The Nawab of Chhatari, representing Hydarabad in front of the Cabinet Mission on April 9,

1946, reiterated a demand for retrocession of the territories ceded to the East India Company,

and added a new claim for a free outlet to the sea. Lord Wavell asked him what port Hydarabad

had in view. Chhatari said that they had thought of Goa. He added that they would not require

a corridor of territory but only an 'easement' to enable them to import by rail across British

Indian territory goods received at their own port. The Nawab of Chhatari made it clear that in

the event of the partition of the country, it would be impossible for Hydarabad, for geographical

reasons, to join Pakistan or, for ideological reasons, to join India. Hydarabad would therefore

remain an independent state.

On the announcement of the June 3 (1947) plan the Nizam declared that he would not accede

to India or Pakistan. He hoped to secure Dominion status for his state, and sent a delegation to

the viceroy on July 11, 1947. Mountbatten told the delegation that the British Government

would not agree to Dominion status for Hydarabad. Instead, he pressed Hydarabad to accede

to India.

Mountbatten and the Indian leaders believed that the entire Hindu population in Hydarabad

was for accession to India. They stressed time and again that the issue of Hydarabad should be

left to the people to decide. In August 1947, Mountbatten had written to the Nizam offering "a

referendum under the supervision of British officers", but the Nizam had not agreed.

A standstill agreement between India and Hydarabad was concluded on November 29, 1947.

The Nizam also gave a secret promise to Mountbatten not to accede to Pakistan.

The pressure against Hydarabad increased in intensity. An economic blockade was imposed.

On August 24, Hydarabad filed a complaint before the Security Council. But before the

Security Council could arrange a hearing, India forced a military decision on Hydarabad. On

September 13, 1948 a full-scale invasion of Hydarabad state by the Indian armed forces was

launched. After a brief resistance, the Hydarabad army surrendered on September 17. The

complaint before the Security Council is still pending.

This was the end of the State of Hydarabad; it went to its rightful owners – the people of India.

Kashmir partly found and mostly lost

I believe that the Muslim League had a plan to take over Kashmir by force of arms. There is

no other way to explain Muslim League’s stance on various issues. The attack on Kashmir by

a ‘tribal lashkar’ is always dissociated from the Government of Pakistan. This is part of the

culture. But from what they say, one can clearly see the truth behind the façade. Chaudhri

Muhammad Ali had his own way to say this. He wrote:

“About this time, unknown to the Pakistan Government, a storm was brewing in the tribal

areas. News of atrocities committed by the Maharaja’s government on the Muslims of Kashmir

had reached tribal areas from refugees and ex-soldiers from Poonch, who had gone there to

purchase arms. Massacre of Muslims in East Punjab had already inflamed the feelings of the

tribesmen. Now they felt a call for Jihad, or holy war, in Kashmir. On October 21, Liaquat Ali

Khan told me in a state of unusual excitement that a tribal lashkar, some thousands strong, was

on the way to Kashmir. I asked him if he had informed the Quaid-i-Azam and he said, "Not

yet," he had just received the report. There was nothing the Pakistan government could do

about it. An attempt to prevent the tribesmen from performing what they conceived to be

religious duty would have set the whole frontier ablaze.”

It is understandable le that the tribal attack must have been planned in advance; why? Why

legal, honest, and historically valid route was not adopted from the very beginning? Why the

Muslim League was behaving like a gamblers’ party? And why in the name of ideology

falsehood was consistently spread which could never have been in the benefit of the people of

Pakistan?

Again Chaudhri Muhammad Ali:

“The tribal lashkar, which crossed the bridge on the river Jhelum into State territory on October

22 (1947), quickly overpowered the State forces, and by October 26, had reached the vicinity

of Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir. The previous night the Maharaja had fled from Srinagar

to Jammu.”

What was propagated and made popular in Pakistan was that had the tribal lashkar been more

disciplined, and had it not indulged in plunder on the way, it would have been in occupation

of the Kashmir valley on October 26.

And again Chaudhri Muhammad Ali:

“When the Indian cabinet received news of the tribal incursion into Kashmir, it wanted "to rush

in arms and ammunitions already requested by the Kashmir Government", but Mountbatten

urged that accession should first be obtained. "He considered that it would be the height of folly

to send troops into a neutral state, where we had no right to send them, since Pakistan could do

exactly the same thing, which could only result in a clash of armed forces and in war.

“V. P. Menon was sent off to Srinagar to secure accession. Simultaneously Mountbatten,

assumed direction of military operations. When, on the morning of October 27, 1947, he signed

the instrument of accession V. P. Menon had brought back with him, the airlift of Indian troops

to Srinagar had already started. The credit for the improvisation of air-borne operations within

a few days, and their success in halting the tribal lashkar outside Srinagar, must go to

Mountbatten's military skill. He was the brain that conceived the strategy and the hands that

directed the operations.

“When news of the Indian invasion on Kashmir reached Jinnah, he immediately ordered

General Gracey, the acting Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan army, to send troops into

Kashmir. Gracey did not carry out the order but telephoned instead to the Supreme Commander,

Field Marshal Auchinleck, in Delhi for instructions. Obedience to the Jinnah’s orders would,

as Auchinleck reported to the Chiefs of Staff in London, have entailed issuance of the "Stand

Down Order", which called for the withdrawal of all British officers in the event of armed

conflict between the two Dominions.

“Auchinleck flew to Lahore on October 28, the morning after the Indian invasion, to discuss

the situation with Jinnah. As a result of the discussion, Jinnah agreed to withdraw his order to

the Pakistan army to march into Kashmir and accepted Auchinleck's proposal for an immediate

conference in Lahore between the Governors-General and the Prime Ministers of India and

Pakistan.

“Events in Kashmir had an adverse effect on Jinnah’s health. At the time of partition he had been

confident of Kashmir's accession to Pakistan because of its Muslim population and geographical

situation. "Kashmir", he would say, "will fall into our lap like a ripe fruit." Now he felt deceived,

and his earlier optimism gave way to a deep disappointment. "We have been put on the wrong

bus", he remarked”.

The question is, who put them on the wrong bus? With their mindset, it was not possible to find

the right bus! Such are the processes of history. Their views about themselves, Hindus, or the

world outside were basically wrong. They had no sense of history. In fact they were never serious

about history. At best they were complainants and agitators. In spite of all that, it is really

amazing they got so much and for so long, but, at the cost of the people who paid the price with

their honors and lives in 1947. And ever since, they are paying the price by remaining misguided,

morally degraded and materially impoverished.

Summing up, one is within safe boundaries to say that the antagonism of Pakistan against India

is not due to Kashmir ‘problem’. Rather, the Kashmir problem has been the direct result of the

mindset I have discussed so thoroughly above. I have gone into its deep recesses and observed

the phenomenon carefully for quite a long time. I believe, had it not been Kashmir, some other

problem with India would have been created by this mindset. Even today, they are thinking and

working to break India into pieces!

Muslim League was a like a group of children playing with toys, they did not know how to

handle. They destroyed the toys.

Jinnah as Governor-General of Pakistan

I have thought much as to why Jinnah decided to become the first Governor General of Pakistan.

There was no benefit, which Jinnah could not have bestowed on Pakistan without himself

becoming Governor General. And further there were all the advantages by having Mountbatten

as first Governor General of Pakistan, as well. But, unfortunately, Jinnah decided in favour of his

own appointment. One need not be a researcher or a high intellectual to understand this.

Historians and others have observed that Jinnah “could not resist the pomp, the gaudy

ceremonials of the top office of the state”, or that you “could not expect Jinnah, having achieved

his supreme desire of Pakistan, to give up being its first Governor-General.” Even if it is true, I

cannot believe it could have been the question of his personal aggrandizement only in Jinnah’s

decision. What remains was some state necessity, he thought he had to be there himself to handle.

I tend to think that Jinnah wanted himself to be incharge to deal with the question of accession of

states. And invasion of Kashmir on October 22, 1947 by Pakistani forces was one such state

necessity, I believe. But these actions put Pakistan on the wrong track, and today anybody can

see the consequences.

Had there been no “hidden agenda” of the Muslim League, such complications would not have

arisen. There could have been a peaceful transition and today, history would have been traveling

on a different route.

As our people have been totally fed on dis-information and many prejudices have developed, they

have to struggle hard to reach the truth. Following paras from Chaudhri Muhammad Ali throw

much light and support what I have concluded above:

“Since it was obvious to anyone with the slightest administrative experience that the processes of

partition could not possibly be completed within two months, some provision for resolving

unsettled problems had to be made. Mountbatten’s solution was that he should continue as

Governor-General of both the Dominions for eight or nine months, from August 15, 1947 onward.

He had won the trust of Congress and the Muslim league leaders and could, therefore, confidently

expect that both would be agreeable to his staying on as common Governor-General. The Heads

of Agreement, which he had presented to the Congress and the Muslim League on May 17, made

a proposal to that effect.

“Nehru wrote to Mountbatten: ‘We agree to the proposal that during this interim period the

Governor General of the two Dominions should be common to both States … For our part we

should be happy if you would continue in this office and help us with your advice and experience.’

“As June went on, and Jinnah deliberated on this matter, Mountbatten's impatience was daily

mounting. He had set his heart on going down in history, not only as the Viceroy who had been

instrumental in granting independence to India and Pakistan, but also as the great statesman who

had helped and guided the two new Dominions in their first faltering steps as independent states.

The Congress leaders from whom difficulty might have been expected in accepting a Britisher as

the first Governor-General of new India had given their warm assent; but here was this difficult

man Jinnah, holding his own counsel, and putting off a decision from day to day. What could he

possibly intend? Was it not obvious to him, without Mountbatten's help, Pakistan as the weaker

party would have a raw deal at the hands of the Congress, who were in possession of almost all

the assets of India? There were, no doubt, advantages, for Pakistan in having an impartial

chairman to preside over the processes of partition till their completion. Mountbatten pointed them

out to everyone he thought could influence Jinnah, and sent Ismay and Mieville two or three times

to Jinnah, hoping that Jinnah would be persuaded. Ismay wrote: ‘It was not until the end of June,

that we learned that ... Jinnah had decided to nominate himself as Governor-General, and to make

Liaquat Ali Khan Prime Minister. In breaking the news to Mountbatten, Mr. Jinnah expressed the

hope that it would make no difference to his acceptance of office as the first Governor-General of

India, or to his being Chairman of a Joint Defense Council of the two countries. This unexpected

turn of events was a blow. We had all felt that the best hope of an orderly transfer of power, an

equitable partition of assets, and the establishment of friendly relations between the two new

Dominions would be for them to start off with the same Governor-General.’

“Mountbatten was wounded in his tenderest spot: his vanity was hurt and his pride affronted. He

had lost face with the British government, who had been led to believe that Mountbatten was

acceptable to both Dominions as common Governor-General.

“I was painfully aware of the intensity of Mountbatten's feeling when he one day burst into the

room in the Viceroy's house where the Quaid-i-Azam was working on the Indian Independence

Bill with Liaquat Ali Khan and me. He belabored the Quaid-i-Azam with arguements and appeals

and bluster. He maintained that the proposal for a common Governor-General was inspired by the

highest motives and was in the best interest of Pakistan. Without him as the common Governor-

General, Pakistan would put itself at the gravest disadvantage. It was with the greatest difficulty

that he was securing for Pakistan what was due to her and, unless it was known that he would

continue in this position even after partition, his power to help Pakistan would rapidly diminish.

The responsibility for the immeasurable loss to Pakistan would rest on the shoulders of Jinnah.

He threatened to make all this public and let the world judge. He was sure that the verdict of

history would uphold him and go against Jinnah. He said again and again that he was most

surprised that the objection to his continuance as common Governor-General should have come

from Pakistan and not from the Congress.

“Mountbatten's first reaction was to leave, but "nearly all his staff thought that the case for his

remaining as Governor-General of India was overwhelmingly strong. ‘If the Congress offer were

turned down’, they said, ‘the marked improvement in their (Congress) relations with the British

might receive a severe setback; …animosity between the two Dominions would be increased ...

the British element, from the Commander-in-Chief downwards would probably refuse to continue

to serve in India ... and the Indian Princes would feel that they were losing their only chance of

getting a square deal.’ Finally, he agreed to serve as Governor-General of the Indian Dominion.”

Peace in the sub-continent lost

In his presidential address at the Pakistan Resolution session of the Muslim League Jinnah said:

“If the British Government are really in earnest and sincere to secure peace and happiness of the

people of this subcontinent, the only course open to us all is to allow the major nations separate

homelands by dividing India into `autonomous national states`. There is no reason why these

states should be antagonistic to each other. On the other hand, the rivalry and the natural desire

and the efforts on the part of one to dominate the social order and establish political supremacy

over the other in the government of the country will disappear. It will lead more towards natural

goodwill by international pacts between them, and they can live in complete harmony with their

neighbors. This will lead further to a friendly settlement all the more easily with agreements

between Muslim India and Hindu, which will far more adequately and effectively safeguard the

rights and interests of Muslims and various other minorities.”

He proved to be 100 per cent wrong. We not only lost peace in the subcontinent but also have

been pushed into nuclear uncertainties; while the State and the Society held captive by lunatics

and ideologues of all sorts – a perpetual danger in the region.

Has anybody from the elites in Pakistan ever questioned the position of Jinnah on this? Never. In

this respect the case of Pakistan is even worse than of ex-Communist countries. There, for the

world, it was a known phenomenon of dictatorship of known parameters. Pakistan has escaped

detection by the outside world as to what the elites have been doing here and some name be given

to the phenomenon. For the world, it was just another country with lack of democracy and under

army rule. Further, like Communists, Pakistan was never a closed country and apparently there

always remained a tolerable ‘freedom of the press’! Therefore Pakistan looked like a normal

Third World developing country. While the fact is that the need or urge to question, here, has

been culturally killed. This is not known to the world. What are the implications?

The culture is 100 per cent qualified to perpetuate a quarrel single-mindedly without ever

questioning itself; and more so when there is the bomb but no experience of its use. On top of

that the culture is closed, self-righteous from within and has space to maneuver outside, as it has

not been detected so far by anyone as some dangerous and unwanted entity.

Working of the Ideology: 2002

Of the working of the ideology and the intellectual output of the prevalent culture in Pakistan,

here is a recent example. A function named Quaid-i-Azam Kashmir Conference was held in

Lahore on January 26, 2002. The conference was held under Nazria Pakistan Foundation

(Pakistan Ideology Foundation), in collaboration with Tehrik-i-Pakistan Workers Trust (Tehrik-

i-Pakistan means Pakistan Movement). The venue was Aiwan-i-karkunan Tehrik-i-Pakistan

(Pakistan Movement Workers House). A good paraphernalia of the ideology, indeed!

Azad Jammu and Kashmir President, Sardar Muhammad Anwar Khan, a retired general: Referring to Indian Parliament attack and recent attack on US Center in Kolkata, he said that

India was staging dramas to malign Pakistan and Kashmiris but would fail in its vicious

intentions. He saw foreign support behind deployment of Indian troops with Pakistani borders

and said British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s recent visit to India was quite significant to support

his apprehension. He stressed that instead of trusting ot her countries for defense we should

defend our country at our own.

Punjab Governor, Khalid Maqbool, a retired general said that unless the Kashmir issue was

solved there could be no peace in South Asia.

Majid Nizami, the editor, I quoted in the beginning: Speaking on the occasion, he said Kashmir

is jugular vein of Pakistan. He said Pakistan, being an agricultural country, cannot survive without

the waters flowing from Kashmir. India has already stopped water of three rivers and has recently

also stopped Chenab water, he added pointing out that this all happened during last 54 years and

even more can be feared in future. The Quaid-i-Azam’s order to enter forces in Kashmir was

refused, he recalled, asking the Governor and the AJK President to convey his message to President

Pervez Musharraf that he should not stall jihad. The Ummah cannot survive without jihad, as it is

our soul, he added. He urged Musharraf to start Jihad-i-Akbar (bigger Jihad) in Kashmir. Nizami

said life is trust of God and we are prepared to sacrifice it for Kashmir cause.

The chief editor of the Jinnah Papers Dr Syed Zawwar Hassan Zaidi: Giving historical

background of drawing the boundary line between Pakistan and India, he said that the British had

already decided two years before Pakistan had come into being that minimum area be given to

Pakistan and a Muslim majority district of Gurdaspur was merged with Amritsar to declare it a

Hindu majority area and gave the same to India to have its road link with Kashmir. Thus the

conspiracy to give Kashmir to India had been hatched as early as 1945 by the Viceroy Lord Wavell,

which his successor Lord Mountbattten had implemented by joining hands with Hindu leadership.

I need not comment but strangely, the most favoured lines, in the ideological circles, of breaking

India into pieces were not repeated – perhaps a concession to India this time! Anyhow, I will not

be surprised if this culture, which is unaware and hence totally irresponsible, creates, tomorrow or

on another day, a startling and dangerous situation for the world. I repeat what I have said

somewhere above that there was not a single idea which got currency in Afghanistan, and was not

first mooted in Pakistan, and that too in the upper-most echelons of the power structure.

Light at the end of the tunnel

But then history has played its role. There is the bright side – the people of Pakistan.

When I write this the Indian and Pakistani forces confront each other. I remember 1965, I

remember 1971 and I remember the working of the ideology and the role of the ideologues at

those points of time. But this time it is an entirely different scene. Now the ideology is no more

sharp-edged and effective. It has become old and weak. The ideologues are demoralized. We have

traveled a long way, a more than half a century, under the spell of this magic, through the thick

jungle of falsehood. Now, there are doubts and the people are awakening. Heavens seem to be

happy with this land after a very long time.

Although armies confront, in Lahore it is not preferable to talk on this topic; if at all they talk,

they finish quickly and the topic is changed. There are no emotions, as if they have resigned. As

the culture hinders them in finding fault with their own government vis-a-vis India, they would,

as if habitually and without conviction, mutter few words about India, not necessarily against as

earlier. There is a considered unconcern in the atmosphere. It seems they are voting with their

unconcern and silence. They have been misled time and again, one feels they are tired and fatigued

and are not far away from changing course.

As the unknown has become known, and the culture has left no options for the people of Pakistan,

therefore now, they have to change the course of History itself. It seems it will be almost a

revolution. Therefore, we, the people of Pakistan, seek prayers of all friends of Humanity. ■