Kashmir’s Instrument of Accession

Pakistan OBSERVER, Tue, Nov,13, 2007.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema
 

The recent appointment of Cassidy and Associates whose Vice President is the former Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robin Raphael to look after Pakistan’s interest is indeed a good move and it could help in promoting Pakistan’s viewpoint. The former secretary of State for South Asian affairs is well versed in developments in the region. Her stay at the State department and her regular contacts with important South Asian leaders must have had given her the requisite insight deemed necessary to properly comprehend the regional affairs. 

While almost all high officials of the State department have fairly comprehensive knowledge of the South Asian affairs but those entrusted with the task of governmental responsibilities are even better equipped as they have had the privilege of scanning through the official documents. The official correspondences invariably provide insight into the complexity of the regional affairs. 

During her tenure in the office Mrs. Robin Raphael earned permanent ire of the Indian government and the Indian-American community for questioning the authenticity of the instrument of accession presumably signed by the then Maharaja Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir. It was reported that on 23^rd October 1993 she expressed her doubts and said, ‘We (USA) do not recognize the legal validity of Kashmir’s accession as meaning that Kashmir is for ever an integral part of India… The people of Kashmir have got to be consulted in any kind of final settlement of Kashmir dispute’. 

She is not the only individual who questioned the validity of the accession instrument. In fact many scholars of international reputation have drawn attention of many on this particular issue. Not only Lord Mountbatten, in his acceptance letter, qualified the accession by stressing that ‘in the case of any state where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of people of the state’. He further stated that the question of State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people. 

Many authoritative writers including perceptive writers like Lord Birdwood categorically concluded that the accession was provisional and conditional. While the government of India accepted the accession but in the very next sentence qualified it by stressing that the issue would be finally settled by reference to the people. What stands out in the acceptance letter is that the final settlement was dependent upon the reference to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. 

If the UN resolutions of Aug.13, 1948 are subjected to simple scrutiny, it becomes clear that all involved parties agreed that the final settlement would be decided by reference to the people. Despite having accepted the UN resolutions, the Indian government has been dragging its feet on the question of reference to the people under one excuse or the other. Even the UN special representatives like Sir Owen Dixon, Dr. Frank Graham and Gunner Jarring were unable to secure the consent of those Indian leaders who had already committed to the holding plebiscite in Kashmir. 

India had followed a policy of evasion and successfully avoided to give a practical shape to its commitments. Many scholars have categorically and convincingly highlighted the fact that India not only carefully planned its initial strategy but a long term strategy was also meticulously evolved. During the initial days, it was deemed essential to avoid quick plebiscite and to buy time and delay the issue as far as possible. 

Over the years the Indian strategy of delay has paid rich dividends. Cognizant of advantages one can gain by delaying the holding of plebiscite, India was expecting that the passage of time would provide many excuses to wriggle out of the commitments it made to the UN and to the people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The interpretation, re-interpretation and the misinterpretation of the original commitment enabled the Indian government to avoid the holding of plebiscite in Kashmir rather successfully. 

With the passage of time not only the global environment changed and the new issues emerged but the new environment also caused shifting of allegiances. The old issues were relegated to areas of negligible importance and more attention began to be devoted the emerging realities. The major developments like the death of the Cold War and the tragic events of 9/11 changed the rules of game that nation play in an anarchic world order. 

No nation of substance is currently willing to subject issue of authenticity of Kashmir’s forcible accession to India to rational criticism. On the contrary the notions like working out a compromise are advanced with diplomatic force and the parties involved are pressurized to settle it on the basis of status quo. Apart from Pakistan no nation seems to be willing to take up the issue on the basis of internationally recognized principles. 

Clear evidence has been put forward by many knowledgeable scholars that the Indian policy of forcibly occupying was part of plan which they have carefully executed. It has been recorded by many that the Indian government came to know of tribesmen’s incursion on the 20^th October and the Indian troops were dispatched on 27^th October 1947. This means that India was not only able to secure the accession instrument signed within a week and was also able to arrange the necessary troops, aircrafts, supplies in order to dispatch the minimum number troops deemed essential to block the fast approaching tribesmen. 

Many military analysts and scholars who have subjected the entire episode to investigative processes are of the opinion that it is not possible to arrange everything within one week. The minimum suggested time is two to thee weeks for necessary preparation. Not only the troops were dispatched on the 27^th Oct.1947 at 9 AM in the morning but it was also reported that that both Mr. Mehre Chand Mahajan, the Prime Minister of Kashmir and Mr. V.P. Menon, the Secretary of States department, left for Jammu on the same morning to obtain the formal confirmation of accession by the Maharaja. 

This clearly implies that the Indian government was determined to forcibly occupy Kashmir irrespective of the fact whether or not the instrument of accession was signed by the Maharaja. It was around one o clock on 27^th October 1947 when rumors that some kind of Instrument of Accession has been signed by the Maharaja of Kashmir began to circulate in Delhi. 

Given the mysterious circumstances under which the instrument of accession was signed certainly invokes many questions in the minds of many. If Mrs. Robin Raphael had questioned the validity of the instrument of accession, it should have been calmly swallowed as the whole episode is bound to raise many questions in the mind of any reader. By and large many members of thinking public in various part of the globe believe that the accession was manipulated.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.