Jammu and Kashmir in the Indo-Pakistani Conflict

Nathalène Reynolds

Description

The Kashmir Valley has been the consenting victim to a process of rewriting of history. Many Kashmiris, since they proclaim attachment to the concept of "azaadi" (a synonymous of "independence"), forget various parameters that have marked their history (specially with Pakistan). This book is a translation from French of a work published in 2005: Le Cachemire dans le conflit indo-pakistanais (1947-2004).

Sujets

• Histoire
• Relations internationales
• Diplomatie
• Géopolitique

Informations

• Publié par: L'Harmattan
• Date de parution: 01 juillet 2016
• Nombre de lectures: 28
• EAN13: 9782140013423
• Langue: Français
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 9 Mo

Extrait

l
f
Jammu and Kashmir
in the Indo-Pakistani Confict
1947-2004
N athalene Re y nolds
The Kashmir Valley, since events at the end of the 1980s,
has been the consenting victim to a process of rewriting of
history that continues to be a heavy burden on the area.
Proclaiming attachment to the concept of ‘azaadi’ (most
usually translated as ‘independence’), many Kashmiris tend to
neglect various key events that have marked the area’s recent
history, and are scarcely in a position to assess the impact of
support from Pakistan.

Jammu and Kashmir in the Indo-Pakistani confict (1947-2004) is
a translation from French of a work published by Harmattan
in 2005. It is a text of great relevance to both specialists and
the general reader. The author focuses on the issue of the
‘freedom struggle’ to which many Kashmiris continue to
express their support. Jammu
Holder of a doctorate in the History of International Relations from the andSorbonne (University of Paris I), Dr. Nathalène Reynolds has lived in both
India and Pakistan on various occasions over the last twenty-fve years.
She has travelled regularly to Indian Jammu and Kashmir, building an
understanding of political changes. Kashmir
in the Indo-Pakistani Confict
1947-2004
Cover illustration : © Michael J. Casimir.
ISBN : 978-2-343-09613-1 9 782343 096131
32 €
HC_REYNOLDS_17,5_JAMMU-KASHMIR_V2.indd 1 15/06/16 21:21:43
Jammu and Kashmir
Nathalene Reynolds
In the Indo-Pak Istan I Con ICt










JAMMU AND KASHMIR
IN THE INDO-PAKISTANI CONFLICT
1947-2004






Nathalene Reynolds











JAMMU AND KASHMIR
IN THE INDO-PAKISTANI CONFLICT
1947-2004







































































Translated from the original French.
An additional chapter covering developments
during the period 2005-2016 will soon be available on-line at
www.editions-harmattan.fr/index.asp?navig=auteurs&obj=
artiste&no=10853.












© L’Harmattan, 2016
5-7, rue de l’Ecole-Polytechnique, 75005 Paris

http://www.harmattan.fr
[e-mail]

ISBN : 978-2-343-09613-1
EAN : 9782343096131

INTRODUCTION

The Partition fulfilled, at least in part, the wishes of the Muslim
League of Mohammed Ali Jinnah which argued for the ‘Two
Nation Theory’ (the existence of separate Hindu and Muslim
nations in British India). Pakistan’s independence (Pak-i-stan –
th‘country of the pure’) was proclaimed on August 14 1947; India’s
1 2turn came the following day . The communalist carnage that
accompanied the decision to partition the sub-continent did not
augur well for future relations between the rulers of New Delhi and
3Karachi . Moreover, the latter feared that India would try to
undermine their fragile rule, with a view to later integrating
Pakistan’s provinces into its territory.
Indeed, several princely states out of the total of some 565,
which were directly linked to the British Crown (whose
prerogatives were limited to defence, foreign policy and
communication with other states), had opted for neither India nor
Pakistan. Leaving Jammu and Kashmir to one side, there was a list
of ten principalities of significance that were to go to the new state
of Pakistan and which, by March 1948, had done so. The status of
the small state of Junagadh situated in Indian Kathiawar and of
Hyderabad (Deccan) were still to be determined, India having
managed to settle the issues of the great majority of the territories
located within its sphere. The cases of Jammu and Kashmir and
Hyderabad, both large states, were in a sense comparable: the
Nizam of Hyderabad – a Muslim prince – ruled over a Hindu
majority population with the support of a Muslim elite. The
Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, Hari Singh, who belonged to the
Hindu dynasty of the Dogras, governed a state whose population
4was Muslim in majority , and he relied on the support of an elite

1 th
India became a republic on January 26 1950, while the Islamic Republic of Pakistan came
st
into being in 1956 (on February 21 of that year, the Constituent Assembly voted for the
rdcountry to become the ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan’; on March 23 , the Constituency was
promulgated). The two states nonetheless remained members of the Commonwealth.
2The term communalism refers to violence between different communities, notably
Hindu, Muslim and Sikh and more recently Christian.
3
In 1958, President Ayub Khan decided to create a new capital city; Islamabad officially
threplaced Karachi on October 26 1966. The construction of Islamabad had started in 1961,
with government bodies being temporarily transferred to Rawalpindi.
4The princely state, which spread across 220,000 square kilometres and included peaks of
more than 6,000 metres above sea-level, was made up of five parts – Jammu, Kashmir,

7
dominated by his co-religionists, in particular Dogras, the majority
population of the province of Jammu from where the reigning
dynasty came. The revolt of Hyderabad, and especially its province
of Telengana, was based, at least initially, around economic and
social claims; the majority wished to be attached to the Indian
Dominion. The movement in Jammu and Kashmir, in contrast, was
first and foremost a political one. It developed, however, against a
backdrop of the ethnic mosaic making up the princely state, itself
of fairly recent creation: under the terms of the Treaty of Amritsar
of 1846, Gulab Singh, who had been ruler only of the region of
Jammu, had gained the territories of Kashmir, Ladakh (up to the
Dras River), Gilgit and Chenab from the British.
For the two new dominions born out of the Partition, Jammu
and Kashmir represented a symbol. The authorities of Pakistan
considered the accession of the princely state to be indispensable in
order to demonstrate the truth of the ‘Two Nation Theory’. The
Indian National Congress had finally given in to the Muslim
League’s demand for partition. However, this did not mean it
acknowledged the existence of two – Hindu and Muslim – nations.
It did, though, accept the right to self-determination of the princely
states. In the same way, it conceded that if Jammu and Kashmir
had been put under the direct administration of the Viceroy, it
would have joined Pakistan. Jinnah, for his part, advocated the
attachment of Muslim majority areas to the new Pakistani state, at
the same time as noting that in the princely states the decision was
for the princes – maharajas, nizams, nawabs…
5The Congress Party was seeking to create a secular state.
Nonetheless, Mohammed Ali Jinnah and the Muslim League
expressed doubts as to Congress supporters’ sincerity in promoting
a secular approach. To back up their claim, they could cite the
interest of Congress – at the very least its right-wing – in Kashmir,

Baltistan, Ladakh and Gilgit. In the first of these, Muslims were estimated on the eve of
independence as making up a little more than 50% of the population. The districts of
Poonch, with the exception of the town of Poonch itself, and Mirpur were almost entirely
Muslim. The Valley was around 90% Muslim. In the northern part of the state, Gilgit and
Baltistan, the population was almost exclusively Muslim, while Ladakh was populated with
Buddhists and Shia Muslims. These religious differences were matched by ethnic ones.
5India employs the term ‘secularism’. It has similarities to the term ‘lay’ as used in Europe.
In practice, the administration has generally sought to demonstrate an equitable treatment of
different religious communities, rather than, in the French republican sense, of seeking a
firm separation between the state and religion.

8
considered as the cradle of the Pandits, members of the priestly
Brahman caste. The Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru,
himself seemed far from insensitive to this dimension, whatever his
attachment to progressive values.
Jammu and Kashmir was also of interest by virtue of its
strategic position. Apart from a border with India and Pakistan, the
princely state formed a natural border, neighboured Tibet, the
Chinese province