Does Kashmir need Partition or Political Consociation?

There are two ways of conflict resolution: Partition and Consociation.

Consociation (literally signifying close association) is a device of power sharing between national majority (ethnic, religious, etc.) and national minority within the bounds of the national state in which both groups may live together as nationals.

Since a state is controlled by majoritarianism, the minority group is apt to feel fearful about its identity and culture. The minority therefore proceeds to assert its distinct identity and the majority tends to suppress minority aspirations. Hence a conflict of interests.

When the national majority freely recognizes the existence of separate identity of the national minority and therefore grants the national minority autonomy of action over its internal affairs while retaining control over the nation state’s central matters such as defence and foreign relations, this state of affairs is called consociational approach of power sharing. It helps both groups to live in peace as nationals of the same (nation) state.

Another aspect of consociation deals with the question as to what degree the autonomy should be granted. The degree varies from conflict to conflict.

British Indian Communal Question

Towards the end of British Raj, contention between non-Muslim majority and Muslims minority grew in intensity regarding what should be the future pattern of governing India. Muslims feared that they would be subjected to Hindu domination after British were gone.

The Hindu majority as represented by Congress Party did not care much about their fears.

The Muslims as represented by Muslim League demanded a federal system of government so that they could exercise autonomy in the Provinces where they were in majority.

Since Congress Party rejected their fears as unfounded, Muslim League kept a ready alternative: If India did not adopt a federal constitution, then the country should be divided and Muslims given a separate homeland to be called Pakistan.

Recognizing the Muslim fears as genuine, the British rulers proposed on May 16, 1946 a consociation based system of government called Cabinet Mission Scheme for future India. The Scheme envisaged a Union of India, embracing both British Indian Provinces and the Princely States, which should deal with Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Communications; and should have the powers necessary to raise finances required for above subjects. The States and Provinces should retain subjects other than those ceded to the Union. The Scheme divided the Provinces into three groups. Groups A comprised of non-Muslim majority Provinces except Assam; Group B consisted of Muslim majority Provinces of northwest India; and Group C consisted of Bengal and Assam. The Scheme envisaged the setting up of an Interim Government and a Constituent Assembly in British India. The Scheme further laid down that after constitution making a Province could come out of the Group.

On June 5, 1946 the Council of Muslim League accepted the Scheme when M.A. Jinnah told them that he thought the Scheme offered by the British Cabinet Mission was the best solution from Muslim point of view.

According to Viceroy Lord Wavell (pp.274-5 Wavell the Viceroy’s Journal Ed. Penderal Moon) Gandhi did not want a settlement so he raised the question of grouping NWFP in B Group and Assam in C Group to scuttle the Cabinet Mission Scheme. Soon M.A. Jinnah accused that Congress leaders were not sincere about the Mission Scheme. They just wanted to capture the Constituent Assembly. So, he went to the extreme of declaring that the attainment of a completely sovereign Pakistan was still the unalterable goal of Muslim India.

At this time the Congress Party, instead of taking a call on Mission Scheme that concerned the future of India, indulged in unnecessary side issues. Pandit Nehru proceeded on June 20, 1946 to Kashmir at the head of a multitude of Congress workers brandishing lathis to force their entry into Kashmir to show solidarity to Sheikh Abdullah’s Quit Kashmir Movement which the latter had started on May 15 against the Ruler of the State three day’s after the self-same Cabinet Mission had issued a policy document on the future of Princely States called May 12, 1946 Memorandum on States’ Treaties and Lapse of British Paramountcy.

This Memorandum laid down that States could become independent after British withdrawal from the subcontinent.

The State police arrested Nehru at Kohalla. Viceroy Wavell pressured the Maharaja to release him. He also sent an aeroplane to Kashmir to fetch Nehru back to Delhi. On June 29, 1946 Congress Working Committee under Moulana Azad’s presidentship accepted the Mission Scheme. Azad was heart and soul for this Scheme.

On July 7, 1946 the All-India Congress Committee endorsed the Working Committee’s decision at Bombay. On the same day Nehru took over as President of Congress Party. Three days afterwards he addressed a press conference at Bombay. Here he declared that Congress Party “had agreed only to participate in the Constituent Assembly and regarded itself free to change or modify the Cabinet Mission Plan as it thought best (p.164-5 India Wins Freedom Moulana Azad; p.205 V.B. Kulkerni Princely India and Lapse of Paramountcy)".

Reacting to Nehru’s press statement, Jinnah convened the League Council meeting at Bombay on July 27, 1946. He renewed his demand for establishment of Pakistan arguing that if Congress Party could go back on their commitment while British were still here what would they do after British were gone; when power would be in their hands. After three days of deliberations, the League Council officially revoked their acceptance of Cabinet Mission Scheme and decided to resort to direct action on August 16, 1946.

Meanwhile Gandhi made a demand to the British that Assam Province should not be forced to enter Group C with Bengal. Gandhi was a legal expert. He was aware that Provinces were free to come out of Groups after constitution making, yet he made that demand.

League’s Direct Action proved to be the beginning of a fresh wave of bloody clashes between various communities especially in Bengal, Bihar, U.P., and the Punjab.

On September 2, 1946 Nehru formed the Interim Government of British India.

Meanwhile Viceroy Wavell tried hard to persuade Congress leaders to accept Cabinet Mission Scheme in toto which they refused harping against Grouping of Provinces; and Muslim League to join Interim Government which the latter did on October 25, 1946.

In November 1946 the British Prime Minister Clement Attlee invited Indian leaders to London. There in the first week of December Jinnah, Liaqat Ali Khan, Nehru, and Baldev Singh met to discuss Mission Scheme. Jinnah stressed that Congress should accept the Mission Scheme in toto. But Nehru raised objections against grouping of Provinces.

On December 6, 1946 British Government issued a statement in London in which it upheld Jinnah’s point of view on grouping of Provinces (p.187 India Wins Freedom Moulana Azad).

Thus did Pandit Nehru (duly blessed by Gandhi) frustrate Consociation based united federal India. The only alternative now left was Partition.

In order to preside over Partition of India Clement Attlee appointed Lord Mountbatten as Viceroy. Mountbatten partitioned British India into non-Muslim majority India and Muslim majority Pakistan in such a way that fresh contention between these two arose. This time over Muslim majority Princely State of Kashmir.

Kashmir Dispute

When Mountbatten announced Partition of British India in June 1947, the Ruler of Kashmir had a native Dewan (Prime Minister) called Rai Bahadur Ram Chandra Kak. Premier Kak wished to keep Kashmir independent. There was provision for a Princely State’s independence in the States Memorandum. Mountbatten came to Kashmir on June 17, 1947 and warned the Maharaja and his Dewan (on behalf of Gandhi and Nehru) not to declare independence (p.120 Mission with Mountbatten Alan C-Johnson).

Also Mountbatten had made up his mind way back in May 1947 to get Muslim majority Gurdaspur district awarded to East Punjab so that post-Partition non-Muslim majority India could avail a land link with the Princely State of Muslim majority Kashmir (pp.759-60 & 781 Transfer of Power Vol. 10).

On their part Nehru and Gandhi felt apprehensive on account of Premier Kak. They wanted to capture Kashmir to satisfy their imperial instincts. So on August 2, 1947 Gandhi visited Kashmir. The question is: What business had Gandhi to visit Kashmir at a time when it was going to be independent country in 15 days? Soon after Gahdhi’s return from Kashmir, the Ruler, Maharaja Hari Singh, instead of declaring independence, dismissed, disgraced and arrested Premier Kak. Also he resorted to importing Prime Ministers and Military Liaison Officers from India. Also his Armed Forces indulged in ethnic cleansing of Muslims in the Jammu Province of the State.

Meanwhile Pakistan came into existence on August 14. Pakistan wanted to capture Kashmir because it was a Muslim majority State. Although there were non-Muslim majority zones in the State, yet Pakistan wanted it whole!

Besides Pakistan could not remain unaffected by the events that happened in Jammu Province especially when armed gangs launched raids into Pakistani villages (p.67 Sardar Patel’s Correspondence Vol. I) to provoke them to some nasty action so that India could get an excuse to intervene in Kashmir.

The Provincial wings of Muslim League in the contiguous West Punjab and NWFP Provinces decided in September 1947 to send armed bands of Tribesmen into Kashmir to oust its Hindu King. (Also they imposed an unofficial economic blockade on Kashmir.)

The reports of what Provincial Muslim Leaguers of the Punjab and NWFP were up to reached Prime Minister Nehru immediately (p.49 Sardar Patel’s Correspondence Vol. I).

Instead of warning King Hari Singh of the imminent danger his State was in, Nehru advised his Home Minister Patel on September 27, 1947 to be ready to capture Kashmir by the end of October 1947. Tribal Invasion of October 21, 1947 and Indian Army’s intervention of October 27, pushed Maharaja Hari Singh to the wall. Cornered by everyone he signed Instrument of Accession when he had lost control of the State.

Governor General Mountbatten of post-Partition India accepted the Accession conditionally. Pakistan denounced the Accession and all. Kashmir Dispute was born.

Prime Minister Nehru took the Dispute to United Nations; and suggested plebiscite as a way out. UN, through its Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), first called, on August 13, 1948, for a ceasefire (which resulted in the division of the State into two parts separated by a Ceasefire Line now Line of Control); and then on January 5, 1949 for the appointment of a Plebiscite Administrator. The very same Nehru did not allow the Maharaja to appoint UN-nominated Chester Nimitz as PA. Rather he employed the services of Home Minister Patel to banish the Maharaja from the State. Maharaja’s son, Karan Singh, took over as Regent on June 20, 1949.

Since 27 October 1947 the relation between India and Kashmir rested on the provision of Instrument of Accession through which the Maharaja had ceded authority to India on Defence, Foreign Affairs, and Communications. Thus it was a temporary consociational federal relationship although “consociation” does not fit the bill because “consociation” signifies voluntary association while as the present relationship was enforced; also it was subject to endorsement through a peoples’ vote of self-determination.

The State of India neither allowed appointment of PA; nor did they allow this “consociational” relationship to last. At the end of Plebiscite year 1949 they changed the relationship between Kashmir and India from the provisions of IoA to the provisions of Article 370 of Constitution of India. This to sideline Plebiscite and Pakistan.

Article 370 was a device to gradually erode the autonomy of Kashmir with the concurrence of Kashmir Government headed at the time by Regent Karan Singh and un-elected Interim Prime Minister Sheikh Abdullah; and with the concurrence of Kashmir Constituent Assembly to be convened soon.

By accepting Article 370 Sheikh Abdullah himself sowed the seeds of erosion. He did so because the sword of Plebiscite was perpetually hanging over his head. Plebiscite would have brought his political career to an abrupt end.

Sheikh Abdullah and Karan Singh were the tools that New Delhi used in Kashmir. When he took over as Regent, Karan Singh was required to appoint the PA as envisaged under UNCIP Plebiscite Resolution. He didn’t. He couldn’t. He was a teenager of 18 who could not stand up to New Delhi. Not that he stood up when he grew up. No such thing. He did everything that New Delhi bade him including jailing Sheikh Abdullah without rhyme or reason.

Karan Singh reigned over Kashmir as Sadri-Riyasat from 1952 to 1965; and as Governor from 1965 to 1967. A decade into the armed rebellion, that wounded the paradise Kashmir beyond repair, Americans came up in December 1998 with Livingston Proposal. It was a consociation based scheme for the whole of the former Princely State of Kashmir. This consociational approach of power sharing (as also its true copies the Four Point Formula; the Achievable Nationhood; the Self Rule Framework) is an attempt to appease the Indian State because it doesn’t actually move beyond status quo.

The question is: Does India deserve consociation in Kashmir? The same India that rejected consociation with Muslims of British India; and the same India that wound up consociation in Kashmir!

Karan Singh and Sheikh Abdullah were among the major characters of Kashmir Tragddy.

Sheikh Abdullah right up to his death in 1982 wished to revive the consociational arrangement of his pre-arrest days between Kashmir and India to gain access to unlimited power for himself and his dynasty caring little that it would not resolve Kashmir Dispute.

But Karan Singh seems to have developed more rational views over time. He wrote in 1982:

“In retrospect the only rational solution would appear to have been to take the initiative in promoting and presiding over a peaceful partition of his [Maharaja Hari Singh’s] State between the two nations. But that would have needed clear political vision and careful planning over many years. As it turned out, the State was partitioned, but in a manner that caused untold suffering and bloodshed poisoning relations between India and Pakistan right down to this day (p.53 The Heir Apparant).”

Partition or Consociation, that is the Question!