A very lax past 24 hours, reflected in the timing of today's post which is even later than yesterday.
Family commitments have kept me engaged otherwise, although that can never be an excuse to not conduct all daily duties in a timely manner.
....
I was requested to draft a brief summary of the people's narrative from a historical perspective up to the present day; for the purposes of politicians, diplomats and other monitors of this territory that we describe as Jammu Kashmir & Allied (areas) or JKA for short:
The Terms ‘Jammu’ & ‘Kashmir’
Although written history can be traced back at least a couple of thousand years, the terms ‘Jammu’ & ‘Kashmir’ came together at the ‘Treaty of Amritsar’ on the 16th of March 1846, emerging as a result of the ‘Treaty of Lahore’ a week earlier. These were a series of events that signalled the downfall of the Ranjeet Singh era and the ascendancy of the British Indian colonial empire.
Both regions being adjacent to each other (viz. Jammu & Kashmir), one can trace a fluidity (like many other parts of the world) whereby each region in different eras would have had a different shape depending on its influence and relative power. No doubt, the term ‘Kashmir’ has been more widely known and used throughout history compared to ‘Jammu’.
A lot of modern historians have tended to classify the history of the region using the terminology of religious identity. For example, there was a Hindu era pre Buddhist era (3rd century BCE to the 8th century CE) before another Hindu era emerged in the 8th century. Thereafter began the Muslim era in the 14th century viz. 1320 CE.
Throughout history, the region has generally remained independent and this is exemplified through the writings of Pandit Kalhana in Rajatarangini (The chronological history of Kings) first published in 1148-49 CE. This historical account is generally described as the first of such in the whole Indian sub-continent & surrounding areas.
Pushing forward towards the modern day, it is generally noted by historians that the region of Kashmir lost its independence to the ascendant Mughal Indian empire in 1586 CE, followed by the Afghans who ruled this region from 1752 to 1819 before Sikh rule under Ranjeet Singh coincided with the gradual accumulation of territory by Gulab Singh, using Jammu as his power base.
Birth of the State of Jammu & Kashmir
This is what then led to the formation of the State of Jammu & Kashmir (Referred to as J & K here on) in 1846, under British suzerainty.
Gulab Singh of Jammu and his family had prospered under Sikh Rule, signified by accumulation of territory up to Tibet (Ladakh), including Baltistan and other areas surrounding what is the Kashmir Valley. With the demise of Ranjeet Singh in 1838 began a series of in-fighting over succession and as the family of Gulab Singh also got caught up in these intrigues, they gradually made distance from what was left of the Sikh Empire and transferred their allegiance to the ascendant British colonial power. These events eventually facilitated the Treaty of Amritsar in 1846 (upon defeat of the remnants of the Sikh Empire by the British) as a quid pro quo between Gulab Singh and the British.
In turn, what was now termed as ‘Dogra Rule’ (indicating the region of Jammu where Gulab Singh and his successors originated from) developed their rule over what became c. 85,000 square miles of territory, including the regions of Gilgit Baltistan, Ladakh, the Kashmir Valley, Aksai Chin (Tibet Ha adjacent to the territory of Tibet), Jammu and what is today AJK (essentially splintered from the regions of the Kashmir Valley & Jammu).
Although rule between 1846 and 1947 remained autocratic and harsh by some accounts, it remained consistent and stable. By the emergence of the 3rd successor to Gulab Singh (after his son Ranbir Singh followed in turn by his son Pratap Singh) Hari Singh was the nephew of Pratap SIngh (as the latter didn’t have any children) and was comparatively modern minded, introducing various socio-economic reforms including a definition of citizenship (State Subject Rule 20 April 1927), compulsory education and the introduction of a parliament (conducting 3 elections between 1934 and 1947 albeit with limited adult franchise). It is also important to note that bilateral agreements made between the State of J & K and British India were more balanced in terms & conditions while being protective of the territory of J & K, compared to all agreements made between post 1947 politicians and India & Pakistan. Examples include the Upper Jhelum Water Canal Agreement of 1904 and the Gilgit Lease Agreement of 1935.
It is also important to acknowledge that the public (or subjects under an autocratic dynasty) played a significant part in activism which led to some of the reforms described above.
Failure or Success of Outside Intervention?
It is within this framework ‘autocracy vs democracy’ that the rights movement pre 1947 should be understood rather than from a religious identity prism (viz. Hindu autocrat vs Muslim majority subjects), which tends to play into the 2 nation theory that the British colonial setup worked so successfully to establish post 1857 (Indian Independence Movement). This had led to the experiment of partitioning Bengal in 1905 and the Minto Morley Reforms of 1909 that created separate electorates for Hindus and Muslims in British India. These strategies to control the ‘locals’ compelled colonial subjects to conceptualise their rights based on their religious identity and perceive their fellow compatriots as the ‘other’, rather than the colonial power manipulating them.
What essentially should have been a peaceful transfer of power from ‘autocracy to democracy’ coinciding with British colonial departure from the region in 1947 and the end of British suzerainty in J & K, was converted into a question of accession to either India or Pakistan. The goalposts had been changed. Both the autocrat and his former subjects were marginalised in the process.
The United Nations was invoked to create a conflict resolution framework after both Indian and Pakistani troops under British command (at different intervals and under differing pretexts) were sent into the State of J & K to ostensibly protect the local population.
It is important to note that the notion of asking the people (through a plebiscite) based on a non-binding conflict resolution framework that sough voluntary withdrawal of troops from both sides; was both a convenient way for Britain to avoid accountability and for India & Pakistan to cement their respective presence in the State of J & K, which endures to date.
Indigenous Freedom Struggle Post 1947
With the autocrat (Hari Singh) adeptly thwarted from retaining the independence of the State of J & K and his former subjects lured into a split between an Indian (National Congress via National Conference & Sheikh Abdullah) and a Pakistani (Muslim League via Muslim Conference & Sardar Ibrahim), while simultaneously being given the impression that the United Nations would imminently resolve this matter, gradually transpired as an ‘eyewash’ for the people.
Their rights struggle which was many decades old and for some communities even over a century old, was now tied in a straightjacket, with intermittent yet regular conflict between India & Pakistan, ensuring mounting casualties of the local population and apparently nobody even acknowledging their cries in 2025.
Various freedom icons (Maqbool Butt being the most prominent) and rights movements have emerged to date, to try and help their compatriots break free of these modern chains of slavery; characterised by a structural absence of freedom of expression, association, assembly & movement on both sides of the divide. The Chinese encroachment into 17% of the State and looming ecological disasters throughout the region, only add to the complexities: which if pre 1947 - the autocratic ruler and his subjects had come to an understanding together - would have ensured a geopolitically neutral territory adopting the highest forms of direct democracy (surpassing the standards set by Switzerland) in a region which is most certainly - in relative terms – the most precious and thus sought after territory in the world, on account of its geographic location and the resources (particularly downhill inclined fresh water) flowing through it.
Continued external manipulation would ensure indefinite multipolar conflict and internal strangulation of aspirations, while an internal political process without external influence based on the stakeholders binding each other into a contract clarifying each other’s rights & responsibilities (particularly over water management), would provide the most feasible opportunities for peace & prosperity of the whole region, which ultimately accounts for half the world’s population.
....
The above brief historical summary of where the people (descendants of former State Subjects of Jammu Kashmir & Allied areas) find themselves in 2025; was written on the 29th of August 2025 by Tanveer Ahmed, an independent action-oriented public policy researcher - working un-interrupted on-the-ground in AJK since April 2005 - operating through direct public funding of the people of this territory, in an inclusive & equitable manner.
....
No comments:
Post a Comment