Kashmir: The Princely State and Rising Tensions

The history of Kashmir as a Princely State under the British Raj and the ideological churn that crept the State, both at an internal and an external domain, hence leading to its accession, is a complex one. This article plays an integral role in forming a foundational bedrock to understanding the events that transpired during and post the accession of the State.

Kashmir, while having its theological and anthropological roots embedded in Shaivite Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam, came into existence as a political entity on the 16th of March, 1846 with the signing of the Treaty of Amritsar.

The Treaty transferred control of the mountainous region between the rivers Indus and Ravi, including the Chamba Valley, from British rule to Maharaja Gulab Singh. This was done in recognition of the Maharaja’s loyalty to the British establishment during the 1st Anglo-Sikh War. The Treaty was signed with the Maharaja having to pay a compensation of 75 Lakh Nanukshahee rupees, marking the beginning of a century of Dogra Rule (1846-1947).

Another noteworthy aspect of the treaty lies in the fact that it established Kashmir as a Princely State. This meant that the Ruler had to acknowledge British Paramountcy and hence surrender the domains of Foreign Policy, Communication and Defence, to the British Crown. The dynasty hence accepted British superiority by becoming a feudatory to the Crown.

Princely States like Kashmir, Hyderabad and Mysore were semi-autonomous, having to acknowledge the paramountcy of the British Crown while the King/Maharaja continued to exercise substantial powers as the head of his State. On the contrary, Provinces were under the direct control of the British Crown. This included the NWFP(North-West Frontier Province), the United Provinces(UP), and Bombay.

Following the establishment of the Kashmiri princely state, it is safe to say that it was entwined with political and administrative criticism from the beginning. These concerns are reflected in a series of letters from British authorities, including the Governor-General, who stated in his 1848 letter to the Maharaja,

In no case, will the British Government be the blind instrument of a Ruler’s injustice towards his people and if inspite of friendly warnings, the evil of which the British Government may have just cause to complain be not corrected, a system of direct interference must be resorted to which as Your Highness must be aware would lower the dignity and curtail the independence of the Ruler.

The lineage of kings under Dogra rule commenced with Maharaja Gulab Singh and ended with Maharaja Hari Singh, with Ranbir Singh, Pratap Singh and Amar Singh in the interim. While successive rulers did undertake substantial reforms to the administrative system, it is safe to say with credible legal evidence that the Maharaja’s interests preceded those of the Kashmiri people.

The Indian Mirror,a Calcutta-based Indian publisher, dated 5 October 1886, provides an Indian perspective on the political landscape in the Kashmiri State. The Author(s) express their unequivocal support for the Maharaja as they state,

….We pity the loot of poor Cashmere and its Maharaja.

The paper also provides a political opinion on how the “Government has always been casting wistful eyes, longingly and lingeringly, and now under the plea of guarding India from Russian invasion”.

They further also indulge in explaining how the British Government was using the excuse of ill administration to further interfere in the State’s administration. They also proceed to justify this accusation by citing the “extension of our (British Indian) Railway system” into the Kashmiri State.

While the Maharajas of successive generations indulged in efforts to undertake administrative reforms, sometimes under British pressure and solely with the intent of not losing his throne, it is safe to say that these measures were half-hearted and half-baked.

In 1922, Maharaja Hari Singh introduced reforms that caused the administration to transition from an autocracy to a diarchy. This included the establishment of the partly democratically elected Council of Ministers. While these reforms were indeed an attempt to modernise the administrative structure, they did not fully satisfy the demands of various communities and parties. While the Council did have a certain mandate to exercise its powers, the Maharaja had the final say in most administrative matters.

Having established the nature of polity in the Kashmiri administration during the century of Dogra rule, it is vital to understand the presence of rising political voices in the region, as they played an integral role at the negotiating table during the time of accession.

The Resolution of the Working Committee of the Indian National Congress, 1935 established that the Congress recognised that the “people of Indian States have an inherent right to Swaraj no less than the people of British India”. One must understand that the Princely States constituted twenty three percent of the Indian population and forty percent of Indian land. Until the 1930s, the phenomenon of the freedom struggle was largely limited to the provinces. Perhaps acknowledging this demographic, the Congress, with this resolution, established that it was willing to expand its outreach beyond these provinces, to the people of the Princely States.

A campaign was initiated in 1931 to protest the Maharaja’s Rule in the city of Lahore. This was an initiative of the Muslim Press, which handed out leaflets and journals outlining the suppression of the Muslims of Kashmir to the larger Indian masses.

Eventually, the Muslim Conference was formed in 1932, by Sheikh Abdullah, Chaudry Ghulam Abbas and other politically prominent Kashmiri leaders. The party primarily advocated for the rights and freedoms of Kashmiri Muslims, who in their view were being suppressed by the Maharaja and his “Hindu advisors”. It is to note that the Conference was partly successful in pushing the Maharaja to introduce land reforms.

The Kashmiri State later jailed Sheikh Abdullah on the pretext of instigating sedition with his anti-government speech. The subsequent trial did nothing but further popularise the man and garner him political support, thanks to public sympathy.

However, in the 1930s, many leaders in the Muslim Conference did away with its Muslim-centric approach, perhaps solely to garner greater political support from Hindu and Sikh minorities in the State. This is reflected in Sheikh Abdullah’s Presidential Address to the Muslim Conference in 1938, he declared,

Like us the large majority of Hindus and Sikhs in the State have immensely suffered at the hands of the irresponsible government…Sooner or later these people are bound to join our ranks…We must end communalism by ceasing to think in terms of Muslims and non-Muslims when discussing our political problems.

Eventually, in 1939, specific prominent political faces in the Muslim Conference including Sheikh Abdullah parted ways with the party and formed the NationalConference. This led to the development of three political blocs in the Princely State: The Dynasty, The National Conference, and The Muslim Conference.

Due to aligning ideologies, the Muslim League, headed by Muhammad Ali Jinnah chose to side with the Muslim Conference. Regarding Accession, the Muslim conference took a clear stance that it preferred that Kashmir either accede to Pakistan or remain an independent State. The Conference reasoned this decision by essentially citing the Muslim majority demographic of Kashmir. Jinnah’s interest in wooing the Kashmiri people (mostly the Muslims) to side with the idea of acceding to Pakistan is evident from his address to the people of Kashmir, where he states,

….I, after careful consideration, suggested that the Mussalmans should organise themselves under one flag and on one platform…..

The same address gives us insight into the dynamic between the National Conference and the Muslim League. When speaking of Sheikh Abdullah’s views on his proposal, Jinnah states,

….Sheikh Abdullah but, as is his habit, which has become a second nature with him, he indulged in all sorts of language of a most offensive and vituperative character in attacking me.

In the interim, the Indian National Congress developed a great dynamic with the National Conference, perhaps due to a concurrence in ideology if not political interests. I (the author) say this as the ideologies of both these entities were mostly similar. The only difference of opinion was concerning the degree of autonomy that would be given to Kashmir, post-accession.

Simultaneously, the Maharaja had a “strong” opinion of his own concerning accession. This is best captured by his Prime Minister, Ramchandra Kak, who stated,

The question of accession was posed to the Jammu and Kashmir Government on two different occasions and under two different sets of conditions. The reaction of the Kashmir Government was the same in both cases.

On the 15th August 1947, Kashmir was still in a dilemma of sorts concerning the State’s future. The factors that contributed to this dilemma were: the unique demographic structure of Kashmir:

• A Hindu king ruling over a Muslim-majority State,
• the Maharaja’s disinterest to do away with the powers he enjoyed,
• the Muslim conference’s support for Pakistan, and
• the National Conference’s stand to accede to India with substantial autonomy in the State government’s hands.

Impending a decision that the Maharaja had to take about the future of his State, he offered to enter into standstill agreements with India and Pakistan. While Pakistan accepted the agreement, India desired to have further discussions with the Kashmiri Government and later questioned the legitimacy of the agreement, reasoning that the Kashmiri officials who signed the agreement were not accredited representatives and stated that it “wanted time to examine its implications”.

In June 1947, Lord Mountbatten, having spent 4 days in the State, supposedly explained to the Maharaja that independence was not, in his opinion, a viable option and that the British Government would not recognise the state as a new independent Dominion and that no complications would follow, as long as he chose to accede to either India or Pakistan by the 15th of August 1947.

Having signed a Standstill Agreement with Pakistan on August 12, 1947, Kashmir could only imagine a state of normalcy with regard to its relations with Pakistan. This is highlighted in V. P. Menon’s book, The Story of the Integration of the Indian States, which states,

The Government of Jammu and Kashmir complained that, in an effort to coerce the State into acceding, the Pakistan authorities had cut off the supply of food, petrol and other essential commodities, and hindered the free transit of travelers between Kashmir and Pakistan.

The State also complained of Pakistan staging “hit-and-run border raids” along the 450-mile border that it shared with Pakistan, in blatant violation of the agreement.

Jinnah, on being questioned on the above-mentioned breaches of the Standstill Agreement and the cutoff of supply of essential commodities, alluded to “widespread disturbances in East Punjab and the disruption of communications caused thereby particularly by the shortage of coal” to justify Pakistani actions.

Having established the dynamic of politics within the State and the impact of the Indian Independence movement which induced and amplified these political forces, the upcoming articles shall detail the accession of Kashmir into the Indian Union and legislative decisions that integrated the State of Kashmir with the Union of India.

Continue to the next article