First of all I am not an expert or have any degree in law/justice
to decide who did the right thing and who did not. But answer to who is right and who is not in context of India-Pakistan lies in the history. A great author once said concept
of justice is complex and based on the predetermined objective. So if we assume
our objective is to meet the basic rules set by British govt.(or Lord Mountbatten),
that is
1) Partition will be done on the basis of percentage of population of Muslims
& Hindus in the state. Muslim dominated regions will go to Pakistan and
hindu dominated regions will go to India.
2) All the princely states governed by local rulers will decide
for themselves, to which country they want to align itself to irrespective of
the majority of the population.
So before taking case of Kashmir, lets examine these rules being
followed or not.
Case 1: Junagadh
Nawab
Mohammad Mahabat Khanji III of Junagadh, a princely state located on the south-western end of India chose to accede to Pakistan. India asserted that Junagadh was not contiguous to Pakistan
and refused to accept the Nawab's choice of accession to Pakistan. Nawab argued
that Junagadh could access Pakistan by sea. India cut off supplies of fuel and
coal to Junagadh, severed air and postal links, sent troops to the frontier,
and occupied the principalities of Mangrol and Babariawad that had acceded to India. Pakistan agreed
to discuss a plebiscite, subject to the withdrawal of Indian troops, a
condition India rejected and occupied rest of Junagadh by 9 Nov 1947. The Nawab
and his family fled to Pakistan and appealed United Nations, where case is
still pending.
Case 2: Hyderabad
The Hyderabad State had a majority Hindu population; the Nizam
wanted to accede to Pakistan or if that was not possible remain independent.
However such a decision was unacceptable to India, so in 1948 Indian Armed
Forces engaged those of the State of Hyderabad and ended the rule of Nizam,
annexing the state into the Indian Union.
Case 3: Jammu & Kashmir
The Princely state of Kashmir and Jammu had a majority Muslim population; Muslims
were 80 percent of the whole state. The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acceded
to India at the outbreak of violence.
So we can conclude, both the basic
rules were not followed anywhere leave alone Jammu & Kashmir. Also many
areas with slight muslim majority near India-Pakistan border were ceded to
India as alleged to have influenced the Radcliffe Line in India's favour by Sir Cyril
Radcliffe(who prepared report on the India-Pakistan partition).
There were some cases in east Pakistan(now Bangladesh) which ceded districts
with slight hindu majority. So looking
at cases in hand as a whole Pakistan was at lose. Although legally speaking Pakistan
have no right over Jammu & Kashmir but similarly India have no right over Hyderabad,
Junagadh and other princely states ceded forcibly. Point is both the countries
didn’t stick to rules as the process of partition was rushed through. Now it is
a catch 22 situation where two kids are fighting since one did wrong so the other
should also be allowed to do it or not?
No comments:
Post a Comment